tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 16 17:13:22 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Quotable quotes



jatlh 'Iwvan:
>ghIchwIj DabochmoHchugh, ghIchlIj qanob.  rtf_KD_ yIruch.

'ach ghIchwIj vIghajbejtaH; jIHvaD 'oH DanobnISbe'.

>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.

Ahhhhhhh. I see now. I was confusing <neH> on a noun to take an adjectival
meaning. (I just saw the other posts. Glad I'm not the only one! ;)
Now I agree with 'Iwvan. "It is only the thing" is what SuStel's
translation means. The key is the placement of only in the translation.
After the article, and it's an adjective. Before the verb, an adverb. In
between . . . what is it?  But, he is correct; it should be translated
"only the thing," not "the only thing."

Hmmm. This whole thing is kind of a moot point; The more you try to say
"the only thing," or "it is the unique thing," or whatever, it becomes
clear that it is an English idiom anyway. Besides, that sentence, despite
it's subject, would probably seem overly philosophical to a Klingon. If
something is the only thing, then by definition it is everything, so it
contradicts itself. 

"Epimedes" Da jIH, <teHHa' mu'tlheghvam> jIjatlhDI'.
(or is that <vI-> . . . one never knows)

-HurghwI'



Back to archive top level