我曾讲到英、美对楼层编号的差异及在世界其他地区的惯例：http://t.cn/A6Ii35bk 最近在Medium上写了篇文章Two Floor-Numbering Conventions：Why is the British convention illogical?（两种楼层编号惯例：为什么英式惯例不合逻辑？）其中几节是新内容。原文及汉译如下：

For people that often travel around the world, the two conventions occasionally cause a short-term confusion. “The gym is on the second floor", said the front desk of a hotel, and you may have to remind yourself about which part of the world you are in today before you head to the gym.（对于那些经常周游世界的人来说，这两种[英、美]惯例偶尔会引发短暂的困惑。“健身房在二楼”，酒店前台这样说道；但你在动身前往健身房之前，可能得先提醒自己一下：今天自己究竟身处世界的哪一个角落。）

Contrary to Logic, with a Solution（违背逻辑，却有解法）

Let’s critically evaluate the floor numbering system and see why there is a logical difficulty in the British usage of the word "floor". The phrase “ground floor” implies that this level is a member of the set (think of the concept of “set” in mathematics) called "floor". Note the level above the ground floor is called the “first floor", and note the definition of the word "first" is “preceding all others in time, order, or importance” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The combination of these two facts entails that the ground floor is excluded from the floor set. The phrase “ground floor” cannot denote any member in this set, as if the ground level of a building should not be called a floor, and yet “ground floor” clearly has the word "floor" in this noun phrase. Alternatively, the phrase “first floor” ought to denote the first member in the floor set but it does not, because “ground floor” already denotes it, and they are not synonymous in British English.（让我们批判性地审视一下楼层编号系统，看看为何英国人在使用“floor”（楼层）一词时存在逻辑上的困境。短语“ground floor”（地面层）暗示这一层级属于一个被称为“floor”的集合（不妨联想一下数学中的“集合”概念）。值得注意的是，地面层之上的那一层被称为“first floor”（第一层）；而根据《韦氏词典》的定义，“first”（第一）一词意指“在时间、顺序或重要性上先于所有其他事物”。结合这两项事实，便得出了这样一个推论：地面层被排除在了“楼层”集合之外。换言之，词组“ground floor”无法指代该集合中的任何成员——这仿佛在暗示建筑物的地面层不应被称为“楼层”；然而，在这个名词词组中，“floor”一词却又赫然在列。从另一个角度来看，词组“first floor”理应指代“楼层”集合中的首个成员，但事实并非如此，因为这一指代对象已被“ground floor”词组占据；而在英式英语中，这两个词组并非同义词。）

【Here’s another way to see the absurdity of the British convention of floor numbering. Suppose you have three sons. The oldest can be called “the oldest son”. The second is of course “the second son”, and the third “the third son”. It will be wrong to call the second “the first son” and the third “the second son”, no matter how special the oldest son is. Well, if the first son were not to be called a son, the problem would be resolved. But would you so discriminate against your firstborn?】
【（这里还有另一种方式可以说明英国楼层编号惯例的荒谬之处。假设你有三个儿子。老大可以叫“老大”，老二当然是“老二”，老三是“老三”。无论老大多么特别，把老二叫“老大”，老三叫“老二”都是错误的。如果老大不叫儿子，问题就解决了。但你会如此歧视你的长子吗？）】

This logical difficulty can be resolved by calling the ground floor something not using the word "floor," such as “ground level” (just like Mexicans call the ground floor 'planta baja' and the next floor 'primer piso', using different words, 'planta' vs. 'piso') and interpreting the word "floor" as denoting a level or layer definitely above (i.e., not including) the ground level.（这一逻辑难题可通过以下方式化解：将首层（地面层）命名为不含“floor”一词的称谓——例如“ground level”（正如墨西哥人将首层称为 *planta baja*、紧邻的上一层称为 *primer piso*，通过使用不同的词汇——*planta* 与 *piso*——加以区分）；同时，将“floor”一词解读为特指位于地面层之上（即不包含地面层在内）的某一层次或楼层。）

History（历史）

In case you’re curious. How did the American floor numbering scheme diverge from the British convention, considering that the first English-speaking settlers primarily came from Britain in the 1600s? It may sound counterintuitive, but the truth is, Americans actually preserved the old British convention, and it’s the British that changed it in the Georgian era (1714 to 1830). During that time, the first floor (ground level) was mainly used for services (kitchens, storage, etc.), and the nobility moved up. These two floors were thus called “ground storey” and “piano nobile," respectively; the latter, literally meaning “noble floor” in Italian, is also called “principal floor” in books about architecture. (See e.g. Sir Banister Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method, Ed. 1924, pp. 505,575,600.) Have you heard of the saying that Americans speak more like Shakespeare than the British? That’s not accurate from the historical linguistic point of view, but the joke has some merit in it. The same can be said of the American floor numbering system.（如果你对此感到好奇的话：鉴于17世纪首批讲英语的定居者主要来自英国，美国的楼层编号体系又是如何脱离英国惯例而演变出独特风格的呢？这听起来或许有些违反直觉，但事实却是：美国人实际上保留了旧有的英国惯例，反倒是英国人在乔治王朝时期（1714年至1830年）改变了这一惯例。在那段时期，建筑的第一层（即地面层）主要用于设置服务设施（如厨房、储藏室等），而贵族阶层则迁居至楼上。因此，这两层楼分别被称为“地面层”（ground storey）和“贵族层”（piano nobile）；后者在意大利语中意为“高贵的楼层”，在建筑学著作中通常也被称为“主楼层”（principal floor）。（参见，例如：班尼斯特·弗莱彻爵士 [Sir Banister Fletcher] 著，《比较建筑史》[A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method]，1924年版，第505、575、600页。）你是否曾听过这样一种说法：相比于现代英国人，美国人的说话方式反而更接近莎士比亚时代的英语？从历史语言学的角度来看，这种说法并不准确，但这一戏谑之言确实有一定的道理。对于美国的楼层编号体系而言，情况也是如此。）