编辑点评：商务英语邮件怎么写才看起来既专业又得体？很多人在写商务英语邮件时经常会因过度追求“专业化”和“职业化”而使写出来的句子特别拗口、晦涩。其实，商务英语邮件最重要的是自然！沪江英语教研团队明星老师Anna告诉你“商务英语邮件的奥秘”。
小编导读：商务英语邮件怎么写才看起来既专业又得体？很多人在写商务英语邮件时经常会因过度追求&专业化&和&职业化&而使写出来的句子特别拗口、晦涩。其实，商务英语邮件最重要的是自然！沪江英语教研团队明星老师Anna告诉你&商务英语邮件的奥秘&。
作者简介：Anna， 沪江网校口语口译、商务英语老师。发音纯正，口语地道。有多年企业工作经验。拥有上海高级口译资格证书，有丰富的口译实战经验。曾担任企业口译员，接待过联合国副秘书长，各大洲行业会长等，并担任会议口译员。
商务英语邮件怎么写才看起来既专业又得体？
大家要做第一步就是要relax！商务英语邮件的写作其实没有大家想象得那样高端和神秘。如果你接触过的商务邮件够多的话，你会发现：商务英语邮件中的语言和大家平时说的、听的地道的口语表达没有太大差别。商务英语邮件在&腔调&上虽然有&正式&和&非正式&的区别，但是它们都必须是&自然的（natural）& ：商务英语邮件中的语言虽然是written English， 但它们在&腔调&上应该和spoken English相似。
我的很多学生在刚刚开始学习商务英语邮件写作的时候，经常会因为过度追求&专业化&和&职业化&而使写出来的句子特别拗口、晦涩。比如下面这个例子：
As per your request, please find enclosed herewith acheck in the amount of $ 47.95.
这个句子中使用了如&as per&和&herewith&这样的看起来很专业但是却没有太多实际意义的词。这些词的使用导致整个句子理解起来很费劲。其实这个学生犯了我们很多学生都会犯的错误：试图通过使用一些big words来提升自己的专业度。但是这样的做法往往适得其反。我们来看下这个句子可以怎么改使其看起来更natural 一些：
As you requested, I&m enclosing a check for $ 47.95.
怎么样，修改后的句子是不是看起来更清爽，更容易理解呢？的确，这句话的&腔调&要更加natural一些，同时，这个句子中也因为用到了&you&&I&这样的词而使它更有亲和力，而不是那么冷冰冰。从专业度的角度来看，修改后的句子要简明扼要，既节约了写信人的写作时间，又节约了收信人的阅读时间，这种&减法&恰恰体现了高效的商务沟通对专业度的要求。
大家再来看两封邮件，这两封邮件都是在阐述同一个问题。相信大家读完这两封邮件后，会对邮件的&腔调&有一个更加直观的认识。
Dear Mr.Pendleton:
your order for a Nashito Camcorder, we are
your check and are returning same.
I beg to inform you that, as a manufacturer, our company sells
to dealers only. In compliance with our
agreement, we deem it best to
from direct business with private consumers.
For your information, there are many retailers in your vicinity who carry Nashito Camcorders. Attached please find a list of said dealers.
Hoping you understand.
Yours truly,
Version II
Dear Mr.Pendleton:
We have received your order for a Nashito Camcorder but, unfortunately, must return your check.
As a manufacturer,we sell only to dealers, with whom we have very clear wholesale agreements.
Nevertheless, we sincerely appreciate your interest in Nashito products. We are therefore
a list of retailers in your community who carry a full line of our camcorders. Any one of them will be happy to serve you.
Sincerely yours,
怎么样，乍一看，很难看出两封邮件写的是一件事情吧？Version II 第一段就把主旨意思点明了：我们已经收到了你的订单，但是很遗憾，我们不得不退还你的支票。而Version I 绕来绕去绕到最后才知道原来是要拒绝订单。
综上所述，商务英语邮件的&腔调&其实没有那么复杂，&自然&才是真的美！
大家伙儿在学英语的过程中有什么疑问？可以去Anna老师的部落留言哦~
声明：本文由沪江网原创，沪江网版权所有，转载需注明出处。We must smash the Clinton machine: Democratic elites and the media sold out to Hillary this time, but change is coming
Neoliberals, D.C. careerists and the pundits lined up this time. They won't be able to rig contests moving forward
Bernie Sanders,
Bill Clinton,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Donald Trump,
Editor's Picks,
Elections 2016,
Hillary Clinton,
Media Criticism, , , , ,
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders
(Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder/Photo montage by Salon)
The Democratic establishment is putting all the heat it can on Bernie Sanders to drop his weapons and put his hands where we can see them. This includes the media establishment. Last Monday Politico ran a piece headlined “Democrats to Sanders: Time to wind it down,” quoting a bunch of senators who said Bernie could stay in so long as he talks just about stuff he and Hillary agree on. (Claire McCaskill: “If the contrast is about what separates us from Donald Trump, then I think it’s fine.”) If they can’t end the race, they’ll settle for ending the debate.A Times story headlined “Obama Privately Tells Donors Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary” had Obama telling DNC high rollers to “come together.” In it Obama “didn’t explicitly call on Sanders to quit” but a “White House official” confirmed his “unusually candid” words. It was a plant dressed up as a scoop. Obama spoke not privately but on background, and not to his donors but through them (and the paper) to his base. It was a different portrait of Obama as unifier: political, financial and media elites, all working as one to put down a revolt.Obama’s neutrality is a polite scam. His “private” chat came before voters in 29 states even had their say. Presidents never let appointees make endorsements, but three Obama cabinet secretaries — Agriculture’s Tom Vilsack, HUD’s Julian Castro and Labor’s Thomas Perez — backed Clinton early, thus shepherding whole economic sectors into her camp. At Obama’s DNC, ethically challenged Debbie Wasserman Schultz brazenly violates party rules by daily rigging the game for Clinton.Sanders often says he took on “the most powerful political machine in America,” by which he means the Clintons. He’s really fighting the whole Democratic Party: White House, Congress, DNC, elite media and, sad to say, national progressive groups. That includes organized labor but also nearly every liberal lobby in town. He’s been a more constant friend than Hillary Clinton to almost all of them — but he must face and defeat them all. That he’s done so in 14 states — 15 counting Iowa-and fought four more to a draw is a miracle — and a sign their days are truly numbered.Donald Trump has accomplished little by comparison. Everything was easier for him. When he hit party elites, no one hit back. Democratic elites had a flawed but still formidable Clinton to carry their water. Republicans had Jeb Bush, and now Ted Cruz. Trump took the low road and then lowered it some more, yet could help himself to issues of broad populist appeal without an establishment type feigning agreement. The media that ignored or dismissed Sanders coddled and appeased Trump. Eight years of open GOP warfare prepared Trump’s way. Bernie’s in the first wave to hit the Democratic beach.With each call to surrender, Sanders just gets stronger. The day the Politico story ran, he swept Democrats Abroad 69 percent to 30 percent. The next day Hillary took Arizona with 58 percent of the vote but Sanders blew her out in Idaho and Utah, polling an unheard-of 79 percent in caucuses that shattered turnout records. On Saturday he’d chalked up three more wins in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington with average margins of 76 perfent. In a Times/CBS poll out this week the man who started the race 60 points down closed the gap to five. In a Bloomberg poll released Saturday he took a 1 point lead.It raises a question that the elites who rig rules, stifle debate and call on Sanders to withdraw must answer: Who do you think you are? It also raises a question for Washington-based organizations allegedly safeguarding progressive values: What have you done? With all her money, contacts and celebrity and full, albeit covert support of her president and party, Clinton needed every last liberal endorsement to survive Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Illinois and Massachusetts. How did she get them? If those endorsements don’t strike you as at least counterintuitive, ponder the record:Clinton backed NAFTA and the TPP, dithered on the minimum wage and still doesn’t support a living wage. Why would labor help her defeat a man who never once left its side on these and countless other vital issues?She backed the Defense of Marriage Act in the ’90s, opposed same-sex marriage till 2013 and recently recalled Nancy Reagan as a hero of the AIDS crisis. The Human Rights Campaign may be the bravest and most loyal of all liberal lobbies. Why abandon a stalwart ally like Sanders for one who dithered and dodged on every tough issue?From Sister Souljah in 1992 to Barack Obama in 2008, the Clinton record on racial politics is highly mixed. She backed the Clinton/Gingrich welfare bill that left millions of African Americans in poverty and the Clinton crime bill that landed millions more in jail. Why did a PAC run in the name of the Congressional Black Caucus pick her over a guy who went to jail to protest segregated housing?The answers are many and complicated. One is that some once great, grass roots movements pledged their troth to a political party and lost touch with their values and their members. Led by hired technicians and assorted other Washington lifers, many froze members out of their decisions. It’s a big part of the story but not the whole story. Another part pertains to ideology and the tyranny of tactical thinking.Ideology is easy to spot in tho it’s harder to see in those we deem “centrist.”
All ideologues think their ideology is empirical — Engels called his “scientific socialism” — but centrists get away with it. We call their shared ideology “neoliberalism.” Its adherents include deficit hawks, military interventionists, market deregulators, free traders and, the key to it all, pay-to-play politicians.This ideology is bipartisan. Without the full support of Democratic elites, NAFTA, the TPP, the Iraq war, Wall Street deregulation, every revolving door and no bid contract, every cut ever made to Social Security or Medicare, would be impossible. The culture wars we so loudly deplore are mostly a sideshow staged by political elites to hold onto their base while conducting their business. This election exposes the real divide in American politics, the one separating us from them.Neoliberal politics is entirely tactical and tactical thinking is static. Most people oppose Wall Street crooks, Mideast ground wars and cuts to Social Security so they talk endlessly about what the Congress they’ve corrupted won’t pass and what other voters allegedly won’t support. Neoliberals love horse-race politics because it never favors reform. Polls favor known quantities. Endorsements g money to those willing to reward the investment. Tacticians rely on marketing tools made to manipulate, not illuminate.Since global finance capitalism runs on pay to play politics, neoliberals promise “change” but can never deliver reform. They can’t talk us out of wanting a living wage or universal health care so they argue tactics: change is impossible because someone else doesn’ we can’t afford it, even though it saves us money.The tyranny of tactical thinking surely led some progressives to Clinton despite knowing she’d likely let them down again. It even infects the minds of voters. In hopes of catching a Democratic ear or two, I’ll illustrate the point using polls.
Eight month ago Bernie was a stranger to Democrats. In a recent CNN poll his popularity among them surpassed Clinton’s. (85 percent /10 percent versus 76/19). The Times poll shows the gap widening. In it, 56 percent of Dems say if he’s the nominee they’ll support him “enthusiastically.” Just 40 percent say the same of her. On issues his that’s why she mimics him rather than the other way around.Yet this is the same poll in which she beats him by 5 percent. Some Democrats who prefer him vote for her. I put it down to tactical thinking. In that same poll 72 percent of Democrats say regardless of how they feel she’ll be the nominee. Seventy-eight percent say her ideas are “realistic”; 56 percnt say his are. The case she make she
she has more delegates. They’d be reasonable arguments if they were true, but all evidence says they aren’t. That so many smart people buy into them only proves my point: ideology makes you stupid.Like all ideologues, neoliberals see themselves as fact driven free thinkers. Last fall polls started showing Bernie beating Republicans who beat Hillary. Clintonites said early polls mean nothing. In their best ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’ voices, neoliberal pundits treated this baseless assertion like a law of physics. It’s not. We take early polls with big grains of salt but Clinton and Trump were very well known with high, hard negatives. That’s different.Six months later he still beats her in every g her people still dismisses the polls. She says Republicans haven’t attacked him yet, but she sure has. The result: people like her less and him more. She says wait till voters find out he’s a socialist. They did and guess what: socialism got more popular. If they find out how honest and frugal his brand of socialism is they’ll like it even more.Pundits tout Clinton’s foreign policy cred. As Secretary of State she no doubt took copious notes but she’s wrong on every issue she and Sanders dispute. She says her Iraq war vote was a long time ago and anyway she apologized but her theory of the case resembles Jeb Bush’s. (She blames W. Jeb blames the staff) As Secretary she applied her Iraq War logic to Libya and Syria. She promoted fracking, bugged the office of the U.N. Secretary General and meddled illegally in a Honduran coup. At what point is her experience cancelled out by her inability to learn from it?
And does Bernie ever get credit for being right?She has vast political experience but may be the most gaffe-prone major candidate ever to run for president. Bernie on the other hand rarely misspeaks. Pundits who prize “message discipline” seem not to notice. They used to say independent voters decide elections, but independents abhor Hillary and adore Bernie so they say it less now. Hillary ranks worst of all the candidates on honesty and Bernie best.
He has the highest favorability rating of any candidate in the race. Save for Trump, she has the lowest of any major candidate in the history of polling. To fact driven, free thinking neoliberals none of it matters. Facts that contradict ideology never do.Clintonites say Bernie should quit so she can focus on Trump. But Trump’s no more inevitable than Clinton. If he gets croaked in Cleveland, does anyone believe she has a better shot than Bernie of bringing some of his followers back into the Democratic fold? In any case it’s not Bernie but her response to him that kills her. Coming out against the TPP or the banks would help if she seemed at all sincere. Her clumsy smears—Bernie wants to repeal Medicare, Bernie opposed the auto bailout, Bernie loves the Minutemen etc., etc.—serve only to fuel doubts about her character. Her shameless surrogates accuse him of partisan disloyalty.
Could voters care less? Bernie won’t quit but even if he did it wouldn’t fix what ails her.
Both Clinton and Trump argue their inevitability. It’s an illusion propped up by rules meant to stifle dissent. (Superdelegates in her case, winner-take-all in his) She’d be the weakest candidate Democrats have nominated in half a century or more. He’d be the worst ever nominated by either party. Neither will finish strong. Both may crumble. Each will then say early wins in a rigged system entitle them to nominations. Will either party have the wisdom to say no?Current rules of both parties are undemocratic All conventions are free to adopt their own rules. Victory may well go to whichever one has the courage to change. Hillary Clinton’s closing argument, other than her inevitability, is the impossibility of the middle class getting what it wants: a living wage, single payer health care, an end to pay-to-play politics. One thing’ we’ll never get them without new leader and new rules.The range of possible outcomes includes a Clinton/Trump race but also a Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz or John Kasich-led ticket coming out of Cleveland 10 points ahead of Hillary Clinton or 5 points behind Bernie Sanders. It also includes a Sanders/Trump race in which Bernie beats Trump by more than FDR beat Alf Landon. It only sounds crazy if you’re wearing neoliberal blinders. Two polls in the last five days (Bloomberg and CNN) say that’s exactly what would happen.For this to happen, lots of other stuff has to happen first. Republicans have to flinch and nominate Trump. Bernie has to pick all the low hanging fruit that’s left and win a couple of tougher races. The Democrats have to unstack the deck. I have a suggestion. Start with the superdelegates.For a solid year the Democratic National Committee has broken its own rules. As Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard noted in resigning as a DNC vice chair to back Bernie, officers may not back candidates until a nominee emerges. Schultz and other Clintonites mock the rule. In slashing debates from 26 in 2008 to six in 2016 and repealing a ban on federal contractor donations, Schultz, a payday loan industry ally, acted w no notice, minutes, meeting or vote. DNC members said not a word. 435 of them, all unelected, are superdelegates. They had no business voting to begin with. All their votes should be allotted to candidates in proportion to their performance in each state.Bernie Sanders must stay in the race not only till the convention but till the end of whatever ballot nominates him or Hillary Clinton. He must do so because he and not she would make the stronger candidate and the better president. Regardless of how the next primaries, he should do it because his campaign isn’t just a revolution, it’s a movement that must outlast this election and many more to come. Blinded by ideology and self-interest, party elites say everything we want is impossible. The people in the movement know if we keep eyes on the prize we can do great things, even a thing as great as electing Bernie Sanders president.
More Related Stories
Don't fear the Poképocalypse: Pokémon Go is a fun phone game, not the end of life as we know it
140 Silicon Valley leaders pen open letter protesting Donald Trump nomination
Ban on Muslims entering the U.S. "unconstitutional," said Trump's reported VP pick Mike Pence in December
How this fuzzy photo of Jupiter and three of its moons represents the future of manned space exploration
"Pokémon Go" may fix what ails a sedentary generation — as well as Nintendo's bottom line
"We are not a threat to you": A video diary of people living with HIV
"Madonna used to sit on the speakers and watch the kids voguing all night long": The history of Vogue
Study: Liberals and conservatives have different brain structures
Drug-happy doctors are unwittingly creating antibiotic-resistant superbugs: How overprescription puts us all at risk
Will Oldham barest interview: "I trust that there are people every day, finding their way to the pieces of work that are going to be important in their lives"
Great news for Americans looking to get scammed out of their money! Trump says he'll reopen Trump University
10 conspiracy theories Donald Trump believes in
Emojis, video, driverless cars: Mary Meeker's internet trends report unveils next big areas for tech growth
These racist ads will make your blood boil
The long con of military decline: How the right uses the armed forces to lie about America
"The forces that are driving inequality are pretty powerful right now": Paul Tough talks race, poverty and how we really fix our schools
Oops! Trump campaign tries to direct RNC to dig up Whitewater dirt on Clinton, accidentally emails Politico reporter instead
Meet the Donald Trump delegate who is stirring up a storm in Silicon Valley
Featured Slide Shows
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Brandon, 28, "Hipster"This self-proclaimed "hipster" by trade — that's right, not an artisanal chocolatier or re-claimed wood whittler but a generic "hipster" — doesn't even have any tattoos. (He does list one of his best attributes as "humble," though).
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Evan, Erectile Dysfunction Expert, 33Believe it or not, the worst thing about Evan isn't his career. His biggest deal-breaker is: "Girls with chipped nail polish, girls who talk too much, narcissists, clingers, girls who have serious food allergies." Jabbing yourself in the leg with an Epi pen actually sounds preferable to a date with him.
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Daniel, Male Model, 31
A "male model" who refers to his body as a "lambo" not once, but twice, in a biography that he presumably had time to mull over. (Example: "Are you comfortable wearing swimwear in public?" "Very comfortable. Why have a lambo if you park it in the garage?”)
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Nick S., Software Salesman, 26
Not only does Nick S. take neckerchief fashion cues from Fred of "Scooby-Doo," but he lists the food he dislikes most as “scary cheeses.” Bad-mouthing cheese is like bad-mouthing our best friend. Deal-breaker, Nick S. Deal-breaker.
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Grant, Firefighter, 27
On the one hand, Grant is the sexy firefighter of our dreams. On the other hand, his worst date memory is “Getting lunch with a girl and listening to her talk about Harry Potter for 20 minutes” — which actually doesn’t sound like enough time spent talking about the British national treasure.
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Vinny, Barber, 28
Vinny, who somehow lives the paradoxical life of being a professional barber and existing with this haircut.
"The Bachelorette" men are the worst: 7 reasons why this season is going to be a glorious disaster
Will, Civil Engineer, 26
If Will could switch bodies with anyone for a day it would be serial womanizer and self-proclaimed “” John Mayer so... um... yeah, enough said.
Recent Slide Shows
Script to Screen
Donald Trump is a horror movie: No, really!
Blood moon magic: 17 amazing images of the supermoon around the world
"Dick Cheney watches television": The four previously unseen 9/11 photos that will make you hate the evil VP all over again
Heartbreaking images from Sandra Bland's funeral
The best series finales ever
When marriage is an act of political protest
Photos from the Happy Ending Salon
Related Videos
Loading Comments...
follow salon
brought to you by
From Around the Web
Presented by Zergnet}