tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 17 02:59:36 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Quotable quotes

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
> >David Trimboli wrote:
> >> > The appearances of things are deceptive.
> >> > Fallaces sunt rerum species.[...]
> >>
> >> rut toj Dochmey Hur.
> >> Sometimes the outside of things deceive.
> >
> >How about {pIj Dolmey chaHbe' Da Dochmey} `Things often appear to be
> >what they aren't'?
> 
> chaHbe'bogh, you mean?

{bIHbe'bogh}, actually, as per SuStel's comment.

> rut rapbe' Dochna' DochHey je

Ah.  I like that.  I like it even more without the {rut}.

> I note you changed from "sometimes" to "often," 'Iwvan.  Been deceived
> a few times too many, eh? :)

The author of the aphorism must have been, as he made a general statement.
If appearances are said to be generally deceptive, does that mean that
they deceive sometimes, often or always?  I chose the middle point.

> >HurghwI' wrote:
> >> jatlh 'Iwvan:
> >> >`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'.
> 
> No, THAT would mean "it is merely a thing."  The pronoun "'oH" in this
> sentence is functioning as the verb, so neH after it is triviallizing
> that action of "being" a thing.

Then you should say `It merely is a thing', shouldn't you?  DIvI' Hol
jatlhlu'DI', wot'e' choHbogh 'oH nung _merely_, qar'a'?

> >> "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'?
> 
> Ooog.  This is something I had not considered.  I see where you're
> coming from.

I'm coming from the fact that _only the officer_ (used by MO to gloss
{yaS neH} in the passage where he explains what he means when he says
that postnominal {neH} means `only', on the page which you advised me
to check, without bothering to follow that advice yourself) isn't the
same thing as _the only officer_.  The former means `the officer (but
not the sergeant, the private or the general's pet targ)', the latter
means `the officer (of whom there is exactly one)'.

> If "yaS neH vIlegh" means "I see only the officer," then "Doch neH
> 'oH" would logically mean "only it is a thing."
> 
> Ah, but would it?  THAT really would have to be "Doch 'oH 'oH'e' neH"!

Somehow I doubt that.  We're used to thinking of {-'e'} as a mere
element of the equational construction, but _tKD_ p.68 implies that
here it does act as a topic marker.  {Doch 'oH quv'e'} literally
means `As for honour, it is a/the thing'.  How can we paraphrase
`Only honour is a thing'?  My best guess is `As for honour, only
it is a thing', {Doch 'oH neH quv'e'}.

It seems to be a semantic universal that topicalisation is incompatible
with some modifiers such as `only'.  That's why I dislike {-'e' neH}.

> (or possibly 'oH neH 'oH Doch'e').  A big part of the problem is the
> double-use of 'oH as pronoun and copula.  in "Doch 'oH"/"it is a/the
> thing," Doch is plainly a noun [...], and thus 'oH must be functioning
> as a predicate (thus verbally).  I suppose if you're being very picky,
> "Doch neH 'oH" would come out to "it is a/the thing alone" (not merely!).

What's the difference?  You have a restrictive modifier applying to the
complement of the copula, `[it [is [only [a/the thing]]]]'.  A different
placement of {neH} could get you `[it [[only is] [a/the thing]]]' (what
MO calls trivialising the verb) or `[[only it] [is [a/the thing]]]'.

> Personally, I think "Doch neH 'oH" does sort of work for this, [...]

Mark, please translate `the only thing' and `only the thing' into Hebrew,
or any other Terran language for that matter, and tell me if they are as
similar as they happen to be in English.

--'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

Back to archive top level