请教：the rule of thumb 怎么翻译？
哪位高人请指教，谢谢经验法则
Rule of thumb: 凭经验而来的方法,经验法则. 例:“Many people consider English verbs difficult. Is there a rule of thumb for mastering English verbs?/ As a rule of thumb, you have to pay $100 a month for every $1000 you borrow.”The phrase is almost certainly an allusion to the fact that the first joint an adult thumb measures roughly one inch, literally a rule (or ruler) of thumb. Since human dimensions vary, any measurement so taken would be only a rough approximation and not to be trusted where precision was required.
这一短语当然是暗喻这一事实，即成人拇指的第一节大约是1英寸长，实际上是将拇指用做测量长度的尺子。由于各人的身材大小不等，这种度量方法只能是一种粗略的近似值，凡是需要精确计量的场合，这种方法就不可信了。
The most commonly connected tale with this story is that the original rule of thumb appeared in English Common Law. The law said that a man could not beat his wife with a stick that was thicker than his thumb. Beating her with smaller sticks was permitted, and in some regions encouraged, to keep the woman in her place.
与这一故事最通常关联的是这一短语曾出现在"英国公众法"中。当时的法律规定男人不可以用比他大拇指粗的棍棒打他的妻子，但用较细的木条打妻子是允许的。在一些地方甚至提倡用这种方法来迫使他们的妻子呆在她们该呆的地方。
While it was certainly true that in many places in the past (and unfortunately to this present day), men were permitted to beat their wives, but this so-called rule was never codified. In fact, this explanation does not appear until relatively recently and its appearances are in American courts that claim such an old English law exists without citing it specifically.
虽然过去在许多地方（不幸的是直至今天仍然有此地方），男人打妻子是允许的，但这种所谓的法规从来就没有编集成成文的法典。事实上，只是到相对来说最近的时候才出现这种说法，这种说法出现在美国的法庭上，美国法庭宣称这种古代的英国法规无需专门引证，它确实存在。
Blackstone in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) writes, "the husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. [...] But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds; and the husband was prohibited to use any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum, ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suae, licited et rationabiliter pertinet (other than what is reasonably necessary to the discipline and correction of the wife). The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanors, flagellis et fustibus acriter verbare uxorem (to wound his wife severely with whips and fists); for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere (to apply modest corrective punishment)." No mention of thumbs at all.
布拉克斯顿在《英国法律评论》（1765年）中写道："丈夫（按照旧法律）也可给其妻子温和的管教。[……]但这种管教的权力局限于合理的范围内。禁止丈夫对妻子使用暴力，民法给予丈夫同等的、或较大的权威，对于妻子的一些不端行为允许他以鞭子或拳头严惩妻子，对于其他的，只可实行最轻的纠正错误的惩罚。在这些法律条文中根本没有提及有关"拇指"一事。
There are three mentions of this supposed doctrine in American case law:
关于这一假设的条文在美国判例法中有三处提及：
Bradley v. The State (1 Miss. (1 Walker) 156 (1824)) upholds the doctrine and cites a Justice Raymond as the source for the doctrine. This Raymond is probably Lord Robert Raymond, a judge on the King's Bench from 1724-1733. Despite the Mississippi court's ruling, no one has found any of Raymond's rulings that relate to such a doctrine. In 1868, State v. A.B. Rhodes (61 N.C. 453) the jury found "that the defendant struck Elizabeth Rhodes, his wife, three licks, with a switch about the size of his fingers (but not as large as a man's thumb) without any provocation except some words uttered by her and not recollected by the witness." The judgment was appealed and upheld, but the appellate court ruled "It is not true [...] that a husband has a right to whip his wife. And if he had, it is not easily seen how the thumb is the standard of size for the instrument which he may use, as some of the old authorities have said; and in deference to which was his Honor's charge. [...] The standard is the effect produced, and not the manner of producing it, or the instrument used." While "old authorities" are claimed, they are not cited.
据1824年密西西比州156号案例记载，布拉德莱支持这一教条并引证雷蒙判决书作为该教条的根据。这个叫雷蒙的人大概就是罗伯特·雷蒙大臣，1724-1733年任国王最高法院大法官。尽管密西西比法院有其自己的法规，但没有发现雷蒙的任何法规与这一教条有关。1868年，罗得61N．C．.453案例中，陪审团发现"被告殴打了他的妻子伊丽沙白·罗得，用一根大约他手指粗细（但没有他的大拇指粗）的树条抽打了三次，他的妻子没有被激怒，只是嘀咕嘀咕了几句，目击证人也未曾重新收集其言语"。原告对判决提起上诉并得到支持。受理上诉的法院宣判："丈夫有权鞭打他的妻子的说法是不对的。即使他有这种权力，也很不容易看清楚他所使用的鞭子是否跟他的大拇指一般粗细，正如有些老权威人士所言。这不同于对她丈夫的控告[……]。标准是所产生的后果，而不是打人的方式或他所使用的工具。"这一判决中提到"老权威人士"，但他们未被引证。
In 1873, State v. Richard Oliver (70 N.C. 60) states that "we may assume that the old doctrine that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina." The closest anyone has come to identifying such a rule in English law is a supposed opinion of Francis Buller, a judge on the English bench from 1778 to 1800. In 1782, Buller held the opinion (it's not clear whether his was a legal ruling or just a publicly stated opinion) that a man had the right to beat his wife. He was widely castigated in public and called such epithets as "Judge Thumb." The reaction to Buller's opinion makes it clear that this was not a widely held right.
1873年，理查德·奥利弗70N.C60号案例中有这样一段文字："我们认为关于丈夫有权鞭打他的妻子，只要他用的鞭子不比他的大拇指粗就行，这一条文绝非北卡罗来纳州的法律。"想从英国法律中找出这一条文并加以证实的人认为这可能是弗朗西斯·布勒的意见。布勒于1778年到1800年出任英国最高法院法官。1782年，布勒特有这一意见（不清楚这是他定下的法律条文还是他公开宣布的意见），认为男人有权打自己的妻子。他受到公众的激烈抨击，并得到了"拇指法官"这样一个雅号，从公众对布勒观点的反映可以清楚地看出，所谓丈夫有权打妻子的说法是不为公众所接受的。
So, what we have is a single English judge who in 1782 (probably) held that a man could beat his wife with a stick narrower than his thumb. Since, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, the phrase dates from at least 1692, this is probably not the origin of the phrase.
因此，我们现在只剩下一位英国法官，他于1782年（大约）认为男人可以用比他大拇指细的树枝打他的妻子。根据第二版牛津英语辞典（COD）,rule of thumb 这一短语使用时间至少始于1692年，因此这位英国法官所言大概也不可能成为这一短语的出典。 Explained so detailed, you are really great!! 呵呵，有例有译，很好。 thank u very much. aston, u r so great and so helpful!!!!!!!!! aston，侠之大者。 佩服佩服， 我一直不求甚解的当作“大拇指原则”就不管了 。 没想到背后竟隐藏着这么多的故事和文化。也许正像中国的成语一样，背后也是一个个生动的故事。 佩服，佩服
精彩。 不错不错
长见识了