Rick Lyons in EETimes!

Martin Eisenberg wrote:
> 
> PS. Since some here enjoy language, I'd like to check my translation 
> of a new signature with you natives. Which of the following lines 
> sounds more natural to you? The quote is from Paracelsus.
> 
> To none other shall belong who can be himself.
> To noone else shall belong who can be himself.

Was the original in Latin or German. I know no German and this seems to 
have flow of a very literal translation from Latin ( I have only high 
school Latin from 40 years ago)

I might favor "To no one else shall he belong who can be himself."

Andor wrote:

> "
> To none other shall belong who can be himself.
> To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
> "
> 
> Die lesen sich beide etwas seltsam. Wie ist das Original auf
> deutsch? 

Das Original ist auf Latein, welches ich nicht beherrsche --
trotz meiner aktuellen sig, die ich aber doch verstehe ;)

"alterius non sit, qui suus esse potest"
"keinem anderen soll geh�ren, der Er Selber sein kann"

Zitiert in Hans Asperger, "Schwierigkeiten Hochbegabter", 
http://www.aspiana.de/neben/hobies.htm.

-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Richard Owlett wrote:

> Martin Eisenberg wrote:

>> To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>> To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
> 
> Was the original in Latin or German. I know no German and this
> seems to have flow of a very literal translation from Latin ( I
> have only high school Latin from 40 years ago)

I translated a German rendition quite literally but the original is 
similarly-looking Latin which I don't actually read; see my reply to 
Andor. Preserving the flavor of the original and its time suits me.

> I might favor "To no one else shall he belong who can be himself." 

Thanks. Has that changed?

-- 
Sartre promotes the use of submodernist semiotic
theory to attack sexist perceptions of art.
--from http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Martin Eisenberg wrote:

   ...

> PS. Since some here enjoy language, I'd like to check my translation 
> of a new signature with you natives. Which of the following lines 
> sounds more natural to you? The quote is from Paracelsus.
> 
> To none other shall belong who can be himself.
> To noone else shall belong who can be himself.

Martin,

I hope you don't feel offended, but neither seems natural to me. I would 
probably write, "No one who is [truly] himself can belong to another." I 
avoid "noone" in print, because it looks like Old English for "midday". 
As for shall, it is usually used in the imperative, at least in the US. 
You might choose "will" where I wrote "can", with a slight shift in 
meaning. Will and shall as modal auxiliaries denote future tense. Will 
is closely related to "werden" in some senses, "willen" in others, and 
"shall" to "sollen". "Will" is mostly neutral, but carries a hint of 
volition -- "free will". "Shall" is more neutral in Brittani, but always 
carries a hint of imperative. Fowler wrote, "The despairing swimmer 
says, 'I shall drown; no one will save me.' The determined suicide says, 
'I will drown; no one shall save me!'"

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

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.

> "No one who is [truly] himself can belong to another."

Hmm, nice but farther from the original than I'd like. See my reply 
to Andor for the source sentence. I guess you got it but just in 
case, "belong" is meant to express the idea of property rather than 
devotion.

> As for shall, it is usually used in the imperative, at least in
> the US.

The source uses "sollen" in the normative sense.

> Will is closely related to "werden" in some senses, "willen"

"wollen"...

> in others, and "shall" to "sollen".

Thank you for discriminating the shades of meaning!

-- 
Dare to think!
--also Paracelsus and easy enough to translate ;)

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.


> > "No one who is [truly] himself can belong to another."
> 
> Hmm, nice but farther from the original than I'd like. See my reply 
> to Andor for the source sentence. I guess you got it but just in 
> case, "belong" is meant to express the idea of property rather than 
> devotion.

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.
  He who can be himself to noone else shall belong.

I like the first choice a little better.

Scott
-- 
Scott Hemphill	hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
"This isn't flying.  This is falling, with style."  -- Buzz Lightyear

To steal a joke from the guys on South Park:

The Vatican has  a new Pope. They will now refer to John Paul II as
Classic Pope.

Martin Eisenberg wrote:
> Andor wrote:
> 
> 
>>"
>>To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>>To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>>"
>>
>>Die lesen sich beide etwas seltsam. Wie ist das Original auf
>>deutsch? 
> 
> 
> Das Original ist auf Latein, welches ich nicht beherrsche --
> trotz meiner aktuellen sig, die ich aber doch verstehe ;)
> 
> "alterius non sit, qui suus esse potest"
> "keinem anderen soll geh�ren, der Er Selber sein kann"
> 
> Zitiert in Hans Asperger, "Schwierigkeiten Hochbegabter", 
> http://www.aspiana.de/neben/hobies.htm.

To warp the line Shakespeare gave to Polonius, "... to thine own self be 
true. Thou canst not then belong to any man."

David Riesman wrote a book around 1952 called "Faces in the Crowd" in 
which he established the notion of "inner directed" and "other directed" 
people: those who follow a set of internalized values, and those whose 
actions are governed mostly by their perceptions of -- and concern for 
-- what others think about them. Most real people are a mix, but the 
notion goes back at least to the Bible, contrasted there as sheep and 
goats. I, like most, share characteristics of both. I'm an old goat and 
a black sheep.

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

Peter K. wrote:
> Rick Lyons wrote:
> 
> 
>>I heard someone say today, on the radio, that the new
>>Pope is, "God's Rothweiler."
> 
> 
> I liked the joke that played on NPR about him, and how persuasive he
> could be:
> 
> Ratzinger and two other clergy were standing at the Pearly Gates, and
> one by one are taken in to meet their Maker.
> 
> The first one goes in, and comes out crying and saying "How could I
> have been so wrong!".
> 
> The second one goes in, and comes out crying and saying "How could I
> have been so wrong!".
> 
> Ratzinger goes in, and God comes out crying and saying "How could I
> have been so wrong!".

I heard another version last night:

Ratzinger and two other clergy were standing at the Pearly Gates, and 
one by one are taken in to meet their Maker.

The first one goes in, and comes out crying and saying "How could I have 
been so wrong!".

The second one goes in, and comes out crying and saying "How could I 
have been so wrong!".

Ratzinger goes in, and comes out crying and saying "How could He be so 
wrong!".

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

Martin Eisenberg wrote:

> Richard Owlett wrote: 
> 
>>Martin Eisenberg wrote:> 
> 
>>>To none other shall belong who can be himself.
>>>To noone else shall belong who can be himself.
>>
>>Was the original in Latin or German. I know no German and this
>>seems to have flow of a very literal translation from Latin ( I
>>have only high school Latin from 40 years ago)
>  
> I translated a German rendition quite literally but the original is 
> similarly-looking Latin which I don't actually read; see my reply to 
> Andor. Preserving the flavor of the original and its time suits me.
> 
> 
>>I might favor "To no one else shall he belong who can be himself." 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Has that changed?

After >40 years I no longer 'read' Latin ;)
I looked at your two possible translations and tried to understand 
original author.

Assuming that the original was in Latin, and knowing explicit personal 
pronouns are typically implied by verb endings, I supplied a "possible 
translation" that "felt better" to a specific native 'US English' 
speaker. [ Did I supply enough weasel worded qualifications ;]