Jerry Avins wrote:

> They make a logical sense that is hard to see in English because
> the natural word order is inverted. I think you will see the
> sense if you recast "To no one else shall belong he who can be
> himself" as "He who can be himself shall belong to on one else."
> That's pretty much the way I would render it into English
> anyway. A motto, like a joke, falls flat id it needs to be
> explained. 

OK, I'm going to trust you on that so this thing can come to an end 
and I get to actually using the motto ;) Thanks to all participants.


Martin

-- 
He who can be himself shall belong to no one else.
--Paracelsus

Richard Owlett wrote:
> bhooshaniyer wrote:
> 
>>> Hi Martin--
>>> Sorry for raking up an old post. Thats how often I get time to check on
>>> stuff!
>>>
>>>
>>>> To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>>>> To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyways,for the sake of spoken elegance I thought it might be better to
>>> phrase it:
>>>
>>> "To no one else shall belong he who can be himself"
>>>
>>> no?
>>>
>>> --Bhooshan
>>
>>
>>
>> As it turns out, Richard owlet has already suggested that here.
> 
> 
> That's not quite what I said -- snicker snicker ;}
> To quote my self, I said:
> 
> "
> I would render sentences as
> 
>  To none other shall he belong who can be himself.
>                      ^^
>  To noone else shall he belong who can be himself.
>                      ^^
> The sentences suggested by Scot
> 
>  To none other shall belong he who can be himself.
>                             ^^
>  To noone else shall belong he who can be himself.
>                             ^^
> 
> Just do not "compute" ;\
> "
> 
> I.E.  "he" before "belong" seems more natural than  "he" after "belong".
> Then again I flunked out of an institution whose co-founder is "quoted" 
> as saying "I *would* found an institution."
> 
> As an aside to whoever tried to educate me before about 19th century 
> American English.
> I was taking the 20th century undergraduate student spoken emph*a*sis ;}

They make a logical sense that is hard to see in English because the 
natural word order is inverted. I think you will see the sense if you 
recast "To no one else shall belong he who can be himself" as "He who 
can be himself shall belong to on one else." That's pretty much the way 
I would render it into English anyway. A motto, like a joke, falls flat 
id it needs to be explained.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

bhooshaniyer wrote:

>>Hi Martin--
>>Sorry for raking up an old post. Thats how often I get time to check on
>>stuff!
>>
>>
>>>To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>>>To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>>>
>>
>>Anyways,for the sake of spoken elegance I thought it might be better to
>>phrase it:
>>
>>"To no one else shall belong he who can be himself"
>>
>>no?
>>
>>--Bhooshan
> 
> 
> As it turns out, Richard owlet has already suggested that here.

That's not quite what I said -- snicker snicker ;}
To quote my self, I said:

"
I would render sentences as

  To none other shall he belong who can be himself.
                      ^^
  To noone else shall he belong who can be himself.
                      ^^
The sentences suggested by Scot

  To none other shall belong he who can be himself.
                             ^^
  To noone else shall belong he who can be himself.
                             ^^

Just do not "compute" ;\
"

I.E.  "he" before "belong" seems more natural than  "he" after "belong".
Then again I flunked out of an institution whose co-founder is "quoted" 
as saying "I *would* found an institution."

As an aside to whoever tried to educate me before about 19th century 
American English.
I was taking the 20th century undergraduate student spoken emph*a*sis ;}

> 
> So let me rephrase myself- I second in him in this!
> 
> --Bhooshan
> 

>Hi Martin--
>Sorry for raking up an old post. Thats how often I get time to check on
>stuff!
>
>>To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>>To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>>
>
>Anyways,for the sake of spoken elegance I thought it might be better to
>phrase it:
>
>"To no one else shall belong he who can be himself"
>
>no?
>
>--Bhooshan

As it turns out, Richard owlet has already suggested that here.

So let me rephrase myself- I second in him in this!

--Bhooshan
		
This message was sent using the Comp.DSP web interface on
www.DSPRelated.com

Hi Martin--
Sorry for raking up an old post. Thats how often I get time to check on
stuff!

>To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>

Anyways,for the sake of spoken elegance I thought it might be better to
phrase it:

"To no one else shall belong he who can be himself"

no?

--Bhooshan
		
This message was sent using the Comp.DSP web interface on
www.DSPRelated.com

Richard Owlett wrote:

> To make a good translation I suspect we need more information on
> the original Latin.

You got that and then said you no longer read Latin. Anyway, here it 
is: "Alterius non sit, qui suus esse potest." Since your suggestion 
has not been contradicted, I'm inclined to go ahead and use it.

-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Martin Eisenberg wrote much essentially saying I confused him ;]
I'll repost attempting to clarify things for a a non-native speaker.
BTW I define "native" as resident of Upstate New York (near Rochester ;)

Richard Owlett wrote:

 > Scott Hemphill wrote:
 >
 >> Martin Eisenberg <martin.eisenberg@udo.edu> writes:
 >>
 >>
 >>> Jerry Avins wrote:
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>> Martin Eisenberg wrote:
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>>> To none other shall belong who can be himself.
 >>>>> To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>> I hope you don't feel offended, but neither seems natural to me.
 >>>
 >>>
 >>> Oh, don't worry :) I guess I can't preserve the old-fashioned tone
 >>> and have it seem natural at the same time.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> The word order is archaic, but that is what you want.  I think it needs
 >> the pronoun "he" to serve as a subject.  I would insert it after the
 >> work "belong" in either sentence.
 >>
 >
 > I would insert "he" *before* rather than after "belong" YMMY
 >
 >

I would render sentences as

  To none other shall he belong who can be himself.
                      ^^
  To noone else shall he belong who can be himself.
                      ^^
The sentences suggested by Scot

  To none other shall belong he who can be himself.
                             ^^
  To noone else shall belong he who can be himself.
                             ^^

Just do not "compute" ;\

To make a good translation I suspect we need more information on the 
original Latin.

A competent Latin scholar would be even more useful ;)

Richard Owlett wrote:
> Scott Hemphill wrote:
>>>>Martin Eisenberg wrote:

>>>>>To none other shall belong who can be himself.

>> The word order is archaic, but that is what you want.  I think
>> it needs the pronoun "he" to serve as a subject.  I would
>> insert it after the work "belong" in either sentence.
> 
> I would insert "he" *before* rather than after "belong" YMMY

Now what is a non-native to make of that?
Just put it wherever I want?

>> Another way to make it more natural (modern) would be to fold
>> the sentence in half:
>>
>>   He who can be himself to none other shall belong.

I such a thing never have seen ;) But I guess that's
why you call it "more modern", not "modern". Thank you.

-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message
news:BE8D88F4.66DA%
> (sorry Jerry, it was just my first visceral reaction.  i know what you're
> meaning.  George Carlin used to do a bit about this very issue.  "Why is it
> that we drive in the parkway and park in the driveway?")


And goods on a boat are "cargo" but goods in a car is a "shipment".  Lots of
other examples with this quirky English language of ours.

Scott Hemphill wrote:

> Martin Eisenberg <martin.eisenberg@udo.edu> writes:
> 
> 
>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Martin Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>>>>To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>>>>To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>>
>>>I hope you don't feel offended, but neither seems natural to me.
>>
>>Oh, don't worry :) I guess I can't preserve the old-fashioned tone 
>>and have it seem natural at the same time.
> 
> 
> The word order is archaic, but that is what you want.  I think it needs
> the pronoun "he" to serve as a subject.  I would insert it after the
> work "belong" in either sentence.
> 

I would insert "he" *before* rather than after "belong" YMMY