tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 16 06:52:15 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Quotable quotes
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Quotable quotes
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:18:44 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
HurghwI' wrote:
> jatlh 'Iwvan:
> >David Trimboli wrote:
> >> [...] Hoch 'oHbe' quv'e'; Doch neH 'oH.
> >
> >`Honour is not all; it is merely a thing.'
>
> That would be <...Doch 'oH neH>.
Hardly. That would mean `only it is a thing', `it alone is a thing'.
> "Unlike other adverbials, <neH> can follow a noun. In such cases
> it means only, alone." TKD 56
Exactly. Let's see how it works. {Doch} `a/the thing'. {Doch neH}
`only a/the thing', `a/the thing alone'. {Doch neH 'oH} `it is only
a/the thing (and nothing else)'. nap, qar'a'?
> The above translation does indeed mean:
> "Honour is not everything; it is the only thing."
ghIchwIj DabochmoHchugh, ghIchlIj qanob. rtf_KD_ yIruch.
Look, the adjective _only_ (`sole, unique') has nothing to do with
the adverb _only_ (`merely, just'). They do look alike in English,
but that's hardly relevant to any other language. (Who was the chap
who was using {pum} for `autumn'?) The explanation and the examples
provided by MO make it quite clear that {neH} means the latter, both
in postverbal and in postnominal position, as in {yaS neH} `only the
officer', not `the only officer'. One need not try to make it mean
the former. It won't.
--'Iwvan
--
"mIw'e' lo'lu'ta'bogh batlh tlhIHvaD vIlIH [...]
poH vIghajchugh neH jIH, yab boghajchugh neH tlhIH"
(Lewis Carroll, "_Snark_ wamlu'")
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected], [email protected]>
Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences
Home: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria