Re: Clause ordering

[JuDmoS@aol.com]

I have read with interest all replies and commentary regarding my attempt at 
translating what is apparently a much more difficult phrase that even I first 
considered. Many valid points were made, but none seemed to carry the same 
connotations of the original. Ergo, I have returned to the proverbial drawing 
board, and come up with the following:

Hung  qotlhHa' tlhab qotlhHa' je QaDmeH toy'wI' mojqangbogh vay' .

[ does not deserve security] and [does not deserve freedom] [in order to be 
safe(secure)] servant [ which is willing to become] anyone.
Anyone who is willing to become a servant in order to be safe deserves 
neither freedom nor safety.
This takes care of the transitive/intransitive problem with jegh, yet still 
carries the connotation of willingly divesting oneself of one's 
freedom...(becoming a willing slave) for the sole purpose of saving one's own 
skin. It also solves the logic argument. However,  I can find no reason not 
to believe that security (n) (Note the lower-case S) cannot be used in this 
context. 
All in all, I think that my original interpretation, while flawed, showed 
promise, and was the catalyst for an interesting discussion, so, if no one 
else will,  I commend me. For one who is all but totally self-taught, I think 
I translated a difficult sentence rather well. (I felt that needed to be 
said, and it seemed that no one else would say it...you know the old saying, 
"He who tootest not his own horn may never hear his horn tooted." {{{:^[ >

juDmoS