1、

4、

　　While it was once hoped that supplements of folic acid could help reduce colon cancer, new research has shown that taking more than the minimum daily requirement would be harmful. Simon says other studies underscore the downside to dietary supplements, which are unregulated in the United States. "The most striking example is beta carotene which we used to be very hopeful about, but actually increases the risk of lung cancer in smokers. Vitamin E increases the risk of second head-neck cancers in people who have been successfully treated for a first malignancy."

作者：Timothy Henry Bullins 老師
學歷：M.A. of Gaylord College of Journalism,
　　　 University of Oklahoma
現任：文藻外語學院英文系 兼任講師

　　I fully accept the fact that languages are living and evolving. They grow and develop pretty much like any other organism in the world. They attract new words as they encounter new cultures and new situations, just like they lose old words which are no longer needed. But one thing that continues to amaze me is that English writers sometime feel compelled to add new ones to the lexis for which there is already a perfectly acceptable word. And even more perplexing to me, is the fact that when I try to explain these new words to my students, based on some form of logic and deductive reasoning, I am at a loss at how to do so.

　　A new word which I recently encountered is ‘booktalk,’ (some sites separate this into two words, others don't). Now as I type my trusty dictionary underlines this word as being incorrect but I know different. Although I can not find ‘booktalk’ in any dictionary – electronic, paper, or online – I know it is a real word. I have seen it on countless websites.

　　Obviously a ‘booktalk’ – whether one word or two – is a talk about books. Something we used to call a ‘book club’. As a matter of fact, we still have book clubs so I am curious as to why we feel the need for this new compound word. Is it more efficient? Does it better reflect what is going on when people gather to discuss their favorite books? I am not sure but for me it was a little confusing when I first saw an advertisement urging me to attend a local ‘booktalk’. Maybe it was the fact that it was used as one word and not two but either way, it was even more confusing when the advertisement mentioned that several ‘booktalkers’ would be there.

　　Maybe my ire over this word comes from the fact that I don't see the need for it or maybe from the fact that it just doesn't make sense to me. The first thing I thought of when I saw the word ‘booktalker’ was a person who talks to books. And that is ridiculous. But considering a birdwatcher watches birds, a bookseller sells books, and a beekeeper keeps bees, logic dictates that a ‘booktalker’ must talk to books. If this is not the case, then why not use the already useful existing words?

　　Creating a new word for an event doesn't necessitate creating a new word for the participants, does it?

　　Of course adding ‘er’ to the end of a word to create a noun indicating a person's occupation is acceptable and even sometimes necessary to avoid some confusion.

　　I recently taught a class in which the author of the textbook related the story of the original ‘Chinese Lovers’ Day’. In his version, it is a tale of forbidden love between a Weaving Maid and a Cowherd. Now granted, Cowherd might be an archaic word for a person who tends cattle, but the better choice might have been the more modern cowherder. Since with the word, cowherd, most speakers of modern English would assume that the young woman fell in love with a herd of cattle. An EFL conversation book or conversation class should not be teaching or using archaic words.