# To be only body is to be an animal



## egilmela

Could anyone translate this sentence in their language?


_To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to 
be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_


It would be nice to have it in many languages.

Thankz in advance!


----------



## Anne345

en français : 
Etre seulement un corps, c'est être un animal; être seulement un esprit, c'est être un ange; réunir les deux, c'est devenir un homme.


----------



## Jana337

Česky:
Být pouhým tělem znamená být zvířetem. Být pouhou duší znamená být andělem. Spojením obou vzniká lidská bytost.

Jana


----------



## JLanguage

My Hebrew attempt:

להיות רק גוף זה להיות חיה. להיות רק רוח זה להיות מלאך. לאחד אותם לאחד זה להיות בן-אדם.​ 
Need an Israeli to correct this 

I'm not sure about לאחד in either case or in the use of זה


----------



## Whodunit

To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to 
be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being

Nur ein Körper zu sein heißt, ein Tier zu sein
Nur ein Geist zu sein heißt, ein Engel zu sein
Beide zusammen ergeben erst den wahren Menschen


----------



## egilmela

Thanks to everyone so far!! It ment a great deal!


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

Ser sólo cuerpo es ser un animal; ser sólo espíritu es ser un ángel; unir los dos es ser un ser humano. (Spanish)


----------



## amikama

JLanguage said:
			
		

> My Hebrew attempt:
> 
> להיות רק גוף זה להיות חיה. להיות רק רוח זה להיות מלאך. לאחד אותם לאחד זה להיות בן-אדם.​
> Need an Israeli to correct this
> 
> I'm not sure about לאחד in either case or in the use of זה


Your sentence is correct, but I will try to give a bit more poetic version:

להיות רק גוף פירושו להיות חיה.
להיות רק נפש פירושו להיות מלאך.
להיות גוף ונפש פירושו להיות בן-אדם.


----------



## Camille

Essere solamente un corpo, è essere un animale 
essere solamente un'anima, è essere un angelo
Riunire i due è divantare un essere uomano 

in italiano but I think you should wait the confirmation of a native speaker


----------



## JJchang

Chinese:
只有身體叫獸, 
只有靈魂叫仙,
兩種合在一起則是人.

(pls bear in mind we don't have angels in Chinese, we have divine spirits though...)


----------



## egilmela

This is very much apreciated!!!

But this collection is not complete without:

Japanese, Arabic, Russian, Korean, Irish and all other languages flourishing on this forum!!


----------



## Samaruc

Catalan/Valencian:

Ser només cos és ser un animal; ser només esperit és ser un àngel; fondre’ls junts és ser un ésser humà.


----------



## gliamo

Anne345 said:
			
		

> en français :
> Etre seulement un corps, c'est être un animal; être seulement un esprit, c'est être un ange; réunir les deux, c'est devenir un homme.


Other suggestion:
_N'être que _(or _qu'un_) _corps, c'est être un animal ; n'être qu'esprit _(or _qu'un_ _esprit_)_, c'est être un ange ; réunir les deux, c'est devenir un homme.

_G.


----------



## Outsider

egilmela said:
			
		

> Could anyone everyone translate this sentence in to their language?


Portuguese:

_Ser só corpo é ser animal; ser só espírito é ser anjo; juntá-los é ser humano._


----------



## JLanguage

JJchang said:
			
		

> Chinese:
> 只有身體叫獸,
> 只有靈魂叫仙,
> 兩種合在一起則是人.
> 
> (pls bear in mind we don't have angels in Chinese, we have divine spirits though...)


 
That is traditional Chinese and not simplified, right?


----------



## timpeac

I'm sorry, Outsider, but your correction isn't correct! 

In English we say "can anyone tell me..." "could anyone show me..." etc.

"Can everyone translate..." is not grammatically wrong but sounds weird. Thinking about it further, I think it may be because we only want one person to translate it into each language. In anycase "anyone" is more normal here. Also we translate something "into" not "in" as egilmela had, but not "to" either like you put.


----------



## elroy

Arabic:

*ًمن كان جسداً فقط لكان حيواناً. من كان روحاً فقط لكان ملاكاً. من جمع الاثنين معاً لاصبح انساناً*​Transliterated:
_
Man kaana jasadan faqatt lakaana hayawaanan.  Man kaana ruuhan faqatt lakaana malaakan.  Man jama'al ithnayni ma'an la'asbaha insaanan._

This is not a literal translation, because there are no neutral infinitives in Arabic (like "to be," etc.) and the gerund, which is usually substituted for the infinitive, wouldn't work well here.  I would invite other speakers of Arabic to suggest better translations if they can.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, Outsider, but your correction isn't correct!
> 
> In English we say "can anyone tell me..." "could anyone show me..." etc.
> 
> "Can everyone translate..." is not grammatically wrong but sounds weird. Thinking about it further, I think it may be because we only want one person to translate it into each language. In anycase "anyone" is more normal here. Also we translate something "into" not "in" as egilmela had, but not "to" either like you put.



I agree with your second comment, but not with your first one.  I think "everyone" works better in this case.  I definitely know it's common in American English.  In school, my teachers would always say things like "Can everyone turn in their assignments?"

In my opinion, "anyone" doesn't work here, because that would imply that she just wants one person - anyone - to translate the sentence into his/her language.  What she wants is for everyone to do this.  Perhaps a possible alternative would be "Can each one of you...," although I think that sounds even more stilted than "everyone."


----------



## elroy

egilmela said:
			
		

> This is very much apreciated!!!
> 
> But this collection is not complete without:
> 
> Japanese, Arabic, Russian, Korean, Irish and all other languages flourishing on this forum!!



Og du?  Kan du oversette det til norsk?


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> I agree with your second comment, but not with your first one. I think "everyone" works better in this case. I definitely know it's common in American English. In school, my teachers would always say things like "Can everyone turn in their assignments?"
> 
> In my opinion, "anyone" doesn't work here, because that would imply that she just wants one person - anyone - to translate the sentence into his/her language. What she wants is for everyone to do this. Perhaps a possible alternative would be "Can each one of you...," although I think that sounds even more stilted than "everyone."


 
Hmm, I agree with your assignment example but "everyone" still sounds strange to me in this case of "could everyone translate this into their language". I think we are interpreting the request differently. I think the reason it strikes me as strange is because the meaning, it seems to me, is that egilmela wants a translation in as many languages as possible, not that every single person provides a translation so we have 20 in french, 10 in german etc. I know I would have said "could anyone translate this into their own language" in any case - eg could any one person translate it into each language. I don't think it needed correcting. As I said, I don't think "could everyone translate this into their language" is grammatically wrong, but it sounds weird to me because of what I think is the sense of what is being asked.

Also, having just written that, I think we would tend to put the "own" as in "own language" as well. I can't say why though, but either sentence sounds strange without the "own" in it.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Hmm, I agree with your assignment example but "everyone" still sounds strange to me in this case of "could everyone translate this into their language". I think we are interpreting the request differently. I think the reason it strikes me as strange is because the meaning, it seems to me, is that egilmela wants a translation in as many languages as possible, not that every single person provides a translation so we have 20 in french, 10 in german etc. I know I would have said "could anyone translate this into their own language" in any case - eg could any one person translate it into each language. I don't think it needed correcting. As I said, I don't think "could everyone translate this into their language" is grammatically wrong, but it sounds weird to me because of what I think is the sense of what is being asked.
> 
> Also, having just written that, I think we would tend to put the "own" as in "own language" as well. I can't say why though, but either sentence sounds strange without the "own" in it.



Hm...Ok, I see what you mean about that possible meaning of "everyone."  At the same time, I still think "anyone" can mean that she's just looking for one person to provide a translation into his or her own language.  It could even mean "Is anyone at all able to translate this sentence into his/her language?"  We both know what she meant, but I'm trying to identify a structure that would express that unambiguously.

Perhaps "Could this sentence be translated into as many languages as possible?"  Using the passive voice, the problem of having to choose a satisfactory subject is solved.

What do you think?

PS - I actually don't think the language necessarily has to be the translator's OWN language, as long as the translation is valid.  But I agree that if you do use "their," "his," or "her" (as in the original question), it sounds better with "own."


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Hm...Ok, I see what you mean about that possible meaning of "everyone." At the same time, I still think "anyone" can mean that she's just looking for one person to provide a translation into his or her own language. It could even mean "Is anyone at all able to translate this sentence into his/her language?" We both know what she meant, but I'm trying to identify a structure that would express that unambiguously.
> 
> Perhaps "Could this sentence be translated into as many languages as possible?" Using the passive voice, the problem of having to choose a satisfactory subject is solved.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> PS - I actually don't think the language necessarily has to be the translator's OWN language, as long as the translation is valid. But I agree that if you do use "their," "his," or "her" (as in the original question), it sounds better with "own."


 
Yes, that would certainly solve the problem!


----------



## egilmela

Hey, hey heeeeeeeeeeey......!!!!!!


I don't understand why you guys have to go so deep about one's mistakes... You know, I'm only 18 and not a native English speaker....

But of course, I apreciate everything you do to correct me. But then again, this is not the place to argue about me. That you can do in another forum. I only wanted to have this sentence translated INTO as many languages as possible. And ANYONE can help me if they would like to.


----------



## Benjy

hey  the ultimate honour on this forum is to have a couple of members fight it out over what you meant  it shows they care about your post


----------



## JLanguage

Latin: Translated by Amans from the textkit.com forums

_solum corpore animal, solum spirito angelus, et corpore et spirito homines_


----------



## egilmela

elroy said:
			
		

> Arabic:
> 
> 
> 
> *ًمن كان جسداً فقط لكان حيواناً. من كان روحاً فقط لكان ملاكاً. من جمع الاثنين معاً لاصبح انساناً*​Transliterated:
> 
> 
> _Man kaana jasadan faqatt lakaana hayawaanan. Man kaana ruuhan faqatt lakaana malaakan. Man jama'al ithnayni ma'an la'asbaha insaanan._
> 
> This is not a literal translation, because there are no neutral infinitives in Arabic (like "to be," etc.) and the gerund, which is usually substituted for the infinitive, wouldn't work well here. I would invite other speakers of Arabic to suggest better translations if they can.


 

Hei på deg!!

I wondered if you could divide the sentence in three lines, so that is looks like this:

To be only body is to be an animal; 

To be only spirit is to be an angel; 

To fuse them together is to be a human being.


----------



## egilmela

elroy said:
			
		

> Og du? Kan du oversette det til norsk?


 

Kan vel det:

Å bare være kropp er å være et dyr;
Å bare være sjel er å være en engel;
Å bringe dem sammen er å være menneske


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> hey  the ultimate honour on this forum is to have a couple of members fight it out over what you meant  it shows they care about your post


 
Absolutely!!

Egilmela - don't worry we weren't trying to highlight your mistake!! It just gave us food for thought!


----------



## elroy

egilmela said:
			
		

> Hey, hey heeeeeeeeeeey......!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you guys have to go so deep about one's mistakes... You know, I'm only 18 and not a native English speaker....
> 
> But of course, I apreciate everything you do to correct me. But then again, this is not the place to argue about me. That you can do in another forum. I only wanted to have this sentence translated INTO as many languages as possible. And ANYONE can help me if they would like to.



Haha   Sorry if we set you off a little, but I think I can speak for both Tim and myself when I say that we did not mean to offend you or imply that your English was bad.  As a matter of fact, you speak the language superbly.  Such skirmishes, however, are extremely common occurrences on this forum and only bear witness to our uncontrollable urge to break anything apart whenever we can, discuss it and discuss it until we've worn the topic out, and continue to ponder it for days on end.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Haha  Sorry if we set you off a little, but I think I can speak for both Tim and myself when I say that we did not mean to offend you or imply that your English was bad. As a matter of fact, you speak the language superbly. Such skirmishes, however, are extremely common occurrences on this forum and only bear witness to our uncontrollable urge to break anything apart whenever we can, discuss it and discuss it until we've worn the topic out, and continue to ponder it for days on end.


 
Ain't it the truth!


----------



## elroy

egilmela said:
			
		

> Hei på deg!!
> 
> I wondered if you could divide the sentence in three lines, so that is looks like this:
> 
> To be only body is to be an animal;
> 
> To be only spirit is to be an angel;
> 
> To fuse them together is to be a human being.



Of course:

ًمن كان جسداً فقط لكان حيواناً _(Man kaana jasadan faqatt lakaana hayawaanan) _ = To be only body is to be an animal
من كان روحاً فقط لكان ملاكاً _(Man kaana ruuhan faqatt lakaana malaakan)_ = To be only spirit is to be an angel
من جمع الاثنين معاً لاصبح انسانا _( Man jama'al ithnayni ma'an la'asbaha insaanan)_ = To fuse them together is to be a human being


----------



## egilmela

Okey 

Thanks then, to you all!


----------



## elroy

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Latin: Translated by Amans from the textkit.com forums
> 
> _solum corpore animal, solum spirito angelus, et corpore et spirito homines_



Hm...that doesn't look right.  Where's the "be" verb???


----------



## egilmela

I just wondered can you wright Hebrew in it's language. And Arabic as well
if you can?
Like: 
Norsk - Norwegian
Français - French 


i need it for my list of translations (I'm making an document)


EDIT: write, hehe


----------



## elroy

egilmela said:
			
		

> I just wondered can you wright Hebrew in it's language. And Arabic as well
> if you can?
> Like:
> Norsk - Norwegian
> Français - French
> 
> 
> i need it for my list of translations (I'm making an document)



Gladly.

Hebrew: עברית
Arabic: عربي


----------



## JJchang

JLanguage said:
			
		

> That is traditional Chinese and not simplified, right?



sorry for the late reply. you are right Jonathan. 

For the Simplified Chinese version:
只有身体叫做兽, 
只有灵魂叫做仙,
把两个合在一起才叫做人.


----------



## gaer

JJchang said:
			
		

> Chinese:
> 只有身體叫獸,
> 只有靈魂叫仙,
> 兩種合在一起則是人.
> 
> (pls bear in mind we don't have angels in Chinese, we have divine spirits though...)


I can make out some of this from my knowledge of kanji. But there are four characters I don't understand at all:

只有 (only having) 身體 ([physical] body) *叫(?)* 獸 (beast)
(A beast merely has a body)
只有 (only having) 靈魂 (spirit) *叫(?)* 仙 ("immortal" [devine spirit, etc.]) 
(A "devine spirit" merely has a spirit/soul)
兩種 (both kinds) 合一 (together/joined) *起則 (?)* 是人 ("true person")
(Both of these joined together produces? awakens? results in? a "human being")

Thank God you use traditional characters!!!

Gaer


----------



## Lancel0t

egilmela said:
			
		

> Could anyone translate this sentence in their language?
> 
> 
> _To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to _
> _be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_
> 
> 
> It would be nice to have it in many languages.
> 
> Thankz in advance!


 
Here is my translation in our Language (Filipino):

Para maging natatanging katawan kailangang maging hayop; para maging natatanging ispiritu kailangang maging anghel; kapag pinagsanib ang dalawa ito ang pagiging tao.


----------



## JJchang

It's fantastic that you can recognise these words, some of them are not that common. 
perhaps the reason you can't understand those 4 words is because it's Chinese not Japanese Kanji...  

叫= call, is called
獸 = animal, beast, precisely speaking "four legged animal".
so the first sentence is translated as "only having a body is called animal"
合 = combine, 
在一起 = together
則 = then, consequently, ergo...
是 = is
人 = human

I thank god that I use traditional characters as well.  


"both kinds combined together then is human" (literally speaking)


			
				gaer said:
			
		

> I can make out some of this from my knowledge of kanji. But there are four characters I don't understand at all:
> 
> 只有 (only having) 身體 ([physical] body) *叫(?)* 獸 (beast)
> (A beast merely has a body)
> 只有 (only having) 靈魂 (spirit) *叫(?)* 仙 ("immortal" [devine spirit, etc.])
> (A "devine spirit" merely has a spirit/soul)
> 兩種 (both kinds) 合一 (together/joined) *起則 (?)* 是人 ("true person")
> (Both of these joined together produces? awakens? results in? a "human being")
> 
> Thank God you use traditional characters!!!
> 
> Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Gladly.
> 
> Hebrew: עברית
> Arabic: عربي



I know you're right here, but I wonder why you can't use العربية (l-'arabiyya) or اللغة العربية (il-lugha-l-'arabiyya) here as used on the Internet on some pages? Okay, let me go on:

English (English)
Français (French)
Česky (Czech)
Deutsch (German)
Español (Spanish)
Italiano (Italian)
中文繁 (Traditional Chinese)
Català (Catalan)
Português (Portuguese)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Lingua Latina (Latin)
中文简 (Simplefied Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
Filipino (Filipino)

Sorry if there was a mistake. Please correct the list.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I know you're right here, but I wonder why you can't use العربية (l-'arabiyya) or اللغة العربية (il-lugha-l-'arabiyya) here as used on the Internet on some pages? Okay, let me go on:
> 
> English (English)
> Français (French)
> Česky (Czech)
> Deutsch (German)
> Español (Spanish)
> Italiano (Italian)
> 中文繁 (Traditional Chinese)
> Català (Catalan)
> Português (Portuguese)
> Norsk (Norwegian)
> Lingua Latina (Latin)
> 中文简 (Simplefied Chinese)
> 日本語 (Japanese)
> Filipino (Filipino)
> 
> Sorry if there was a mistake. Please correct the list.



العربية means "the Arabic language."  To say "in Arabic" you can say "في العربي" or "في العربية," although I think the latter is more formal.  عربي sounds more natural to me. (That's what we say in spoken Arabic.)


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> العربية means "the Arabic language."  To say "in Arabic" you can say "في العربي" or "في العربية," although I think the latter is more formal.  عربي sounds more natural to me. (That's what we say in spoken Arabic.)



Shouldn't you use عربى for such an informal way? I've been told you could omit the two dots below a jaa at the end, couldn't you?


----------



## Poirot

egilmela said:
			
		

> Could anyone translate this sentence in their language?
> 
> 
> _To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to _
> _be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_
> 
> 
> It would be nice to have it in many languages.
> 
> Thankz in advance![/QUOTE el cuerpo, es solo un animal.... solo el espiritu, es ser un angel..... la fusion .. de ambos.. es el ser humano...


----------



## gaer

JLanguage said:
			
		

> That is traditional Chinese and not simplified, right?


Yes. That much I can tell you. 

In the case of 體, which is traditional, both Japan and the PRC use 体. Most people do not realize how many times a character that has been "simplified" in China is the same or very, very close to a Japanese character that has also been simplified.

An example would be this: 兩 両 两. The first and last are Chinese, the middle Japanese.

身体、しんたい、からだ (shintai, karada), is "body" (among other things).

身體 and 身体 I am guessing are both "shen1 ti1". I'm guessing because typing this in the Chinese IME gives me the two character result that matches the result in Japanese. I read characters, not sounds. I have NO idea how to pronounce most things I read in either Japanese or Chinese. 

靈魂 (I'm guessing ling2 hun2) would be 灵魂, I think, simplified. It is 霊魂、れいこん、reikon, in Japanese and means "soul" or "spirit".

So you can see the progession. In this case Japanese is partially simplified, China's character much more so. 靈, 霊, 灵—all the same thing.

Now, if I can find out the meaning of 起則, in Chinese, I will mostly understand what was written. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

JJchang said:
			
		

> It's fantastic that you can recognise these words, some of them are not that common.
> perhaps the reason you can't understand those 4 words is because it's Chinese not Japanese Kanji...
> 
> 叫= call, is called
> 獸 = animal, beast, precisely speaking "four legged animal".
> so the first sentence is translated as "only having a body is called animal"
> 合 = combine,
> 在一起 = together
> 則 = then, consequently, ergo...
> 是 = is
> 人 = human
> 
> I thank god that I use traditional characters as well.


Ah!! Now I get it! I did not see that you had reposted with a "simplified" version". But it does not look the same to me. It appears that you added more:

只有身體叫獸, 
只有靈魂叫仙,
兩種合在一起則是人.

只有身体叫做兽, 
只有灵魂叫做仙,
把两个合在一起才叫做人.

I thought only the characters would change. (I don't know much, obviously!)

Gaer

PS: I know I'm WAY over my head, but I can't help being curious…


----------



## JJchang

gaer, sometimes the way to say in Mainland China is different to the other region, that's why it's possible for the words to change. 

But this time it's simply because I forgot how I translated those words at the first time... 

anyway, for your previous comment. 體 is ti3 not ti1. The others are correct.  

叫 = call, called. can be either active or passive
叫做 = called "as". definitely passive
種 = type
個 = item? counting word? you know that from Japanese anyway...
把 = to....
才 = only, then

So there's not much difference in the meaning...


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Shouldn't you use عربى for such an informal way? I've been told you could omit the two dots below a jaa at the end, couldn't you?



Either way is fine.  I think the version without the two dots is used primarily in the written language, but I don't think it has anything to do with formality.  It's just a matter of style - or perhaps a reflection of "economical" writing.  Just like we don't write the vowels and use signs similar to - and ^ for the two dots and three dots respectively, somtimes people just don't put the two dots under the "ya" (unless that's what you meant by informality).


----------



## dimitra

_To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to 
be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_

In Greek:


Áí åßóáé ìüíï óþìá, åßóáé æþï (or êôÞíïò)
Áí åßóáé ìüíï ðíåýìá, åßóáé Üããåëïò. 
Áí óõíäõÜæåéò êáé ôá äýï, åßóáé Üíèñùðïò.

-->> An ise mono soma, ise zoo (ktinos)
        An ise mono pnevma, ise aggelos. 
         An sindiazis kai ta dyo, ise anthropos!


----------



## maver

_To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to 
be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_

In Estonian:

Olla vaid keha on olla loom
Olla vaid vaim on olla ingel
Neid ühendada on olla inimene. 

_Literal translation. _

In Russian:

быть лишь плотью значит быть зверем
быть лишь духом значит быть ангелом
соединить их значит быть человеком. 

_In case of mistakes, perhaps a native will correct the Russian text. _


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Either way is fine.  I think the version without the two dots is used primarily in the written language, but I don't think it has anything to do with formality.  It's just a matter of style - or perhaps a reflection of "economical" writing.  Just like we don't write the vowels and use signs similar to - and ^ for the two dots and three dots respectively, somtimes people just don't put the two dots under the "ya" (unless that's what you meant by informality).



And now the last question: What do you prefer? Using or not using the two dots? As far as I know, you actually write two or three dots instead of — or ^ above (bzw.) or below the letters, repectively.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> And now the last question: What do you prefer? Using or not using the two dots? As far as I know, you actually write two or three dots instead of — or ^ above (bzw.) or below the letters, repectively.



I always write the two dots (actually -)...which brings me to the second part of your post.  I always write - or ^ instead of two dots and three dots, respectively (by the way, ^ never comes below a letter), unless I am taking my time to write something in fancy script or something.

I can't imagine any writer of Arabic taking the time to write out all the dots.  It's the same with the Umlauts in German...


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> I can't imagine any writer of Arabic taking the time to write out all the dots.  It's the same with the Umlauts in German...



Okay, in this point you're right and wrong.   

I don't write out the dots above the ä, ö, or ü. They're only lines (-). BUT there ARE loads of people who write them out, indeed.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, in this point you're right and wrong.
> 
> I don't write out the dots above the ä, ö, or ü. They're only lines (-). BUT there ARE loads of people who write them out, indeed.



I didn't say everybody did it.  I was just making a comparison.  In Arabic, I think it's safe to say that everybody uses - and ^ instead of the dots.  Maybe because we have many more of them than you have Umlauts.


----------



## egilmela

Thanks again everyone, but i still need more languages 
I hope all of you guys, let everybody know of this thread... so more can contribute....


----------



## Jana337

egilmela said:
			
		

> Thanks again everyone, but i still need more languages
> I hope all of you guys, let everybody know of this thread... so more can contribute....



Egilmela, 

try renaming the thread (actually, only a moderator can do it if you ask) by including "translate in all languages" or something similar. This usually attracts many people. Your "Sentence" in the title is not very telling.

Jana


----------



## egilmela

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Egilmela,
> 
> try renaming the thread (actually, only a moderator can do it if you ask) by including "translate in all languages" or something similar. This usually attracts many people. Your "Sentence" in the title is not very telling.
> 
> Jana


 
Okey, but how canI tell the moderators?


----------



## elroy

egilmela said:
			
		

> Okey, but how canI tell the moderators?



By PM.  You might also want to provide a link directing them to this thread.


----------



## Jana337

egilmela said:
			
		

> Okey, but how canI tell the moderators?



By sending a PM to one of them. Here is a full list. There is no one in charge of the Other Languages forum, so you can choose. In theory, you could also let them know via the red triangle next to the post number but that should be rather used for objectionable posts.

Jana


----------



## Benjy

here i come to save the day!
what's the new title to be then?


----------



## egilmela

Benjy said:
			
		

> here i come to save the day!
> what's the new title to be then?


 
The new title is:

Translate this sentence to all languages, please!


----------



## Benjy

done  ..............


----------



## redwine

Lancel0t said:
			
		

> Here is my translation in our Language (Filipino):
> 
> Para maging natatanging katawan kailangang maging hayop; para maging natatanging ispiritu kailangang maging anghel; kapag pinagsanib ang dalawa ito ang pagiging tao.



or it could be

To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to 
be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being

Upang maging katawan lang ay pagpapakahayop.
Upang maging kaluluwa lang ay pagkakabanal.
Kapag pinagisa sila ay ang pagpapakatao.

or

ang pagiging katawan lang ay pagpakakahayop.
ang pagiging kaluluwa ay pagpapakabanal.
pagpapakatao ito kapag pinagisa.


I did not transliterate this phrase in order to save the essence and the beauty of this phrase. I tried to translate in in its very essence. 

its like:
It is easy to become human but it is difficult be be man.



tma b ako? -am i right?


----------



## Gullecram

Nederlands (Dutch):



Alleen een lichaam zijn, is zijn als een dier;

Alleen een geest zijn, is zijn als een engel;

Beide samenvoegen is zijn als een mens.


----------



## Psique

This is euskera (basque language) :

Gorputza soilik izatea, animali izatea da.
Izpiritua soilik izatea, aingeru izatea da.
Bien batasuna, gizaki izatea da.

Regards.

P.


----------



## elroy

Gullecram said:
			
		

> Nederlands (Dutch):
> 
> 
> 
> Alleen een lichaam zijn, is zijn als een dier;
> 
> Alleen een geest zijn, is zijn als een engel;
> 
> Beide samenvoegen is zijn als een mens.



Just out of curiosity: why "als"?


----------



## ALOV

In dutch it would be:

"Alleen een lichaam zijn, is een dier zijn. Alleen een geest zijn, is een engel zijn. De twee samen, is een mens zijn"

bye bye!


----------



## elroy

ALOV said:
			
		

> In dutch it would be:
> 
> "Alleen een lichaam zijn, is een dier zijn. Alleen een geest zijn, is een engel zijn. De twee samen, is een mens zijn"
> 
> bye bye!



De twee samen?  Wouldn't it sound better with a verb?


----------



## egilmela

This has helped me a great deal, thanks y'all!


----------



## egilmela

So... Is there anyone out there who can translate this "poem" into Russian?


----------



## meili

redwine said:
			
		

> or it could be
> 
> To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to
> be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being
> 
> Upang maging katawan lang ay pagpapakahayop.
> Upang maging kaluluwa lang ay pagkakabanal.
> Kapag pinagisa sila ay ang pagpapakatao.
> 
> or
> 
> ang pagiging katawan lang ay pagpakakahayop.
> ang pagiging kaluluwa ay pagpapakabanal.
> pagpapakatao ito kapag pinagisa.
> 
> 
> I did not transliterate this phrase in order to save the essence and the beauty of this phrase. I tried to translate in in its very essence.
> 
> its like:
> It is easy to become human but it is difficult be be man.
> 
> tma b ako? -am i right?


 
Hi redwine!  I like your translation better!  It kept the meaning of the phrase!  _Please do not get mad at me Lancelot!  Patawad _

Anyways, here is my try:

Para maging katawan lamang ay pagiging hayop
Para maging espiritu lamang ay pagiging anghel
Ang pagsasanib ng dalawa ay pagiging Tao!

Mabuhay ang Kalayaan!


----------



## mili_00

To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to 
be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being


en español: ser solo cuerpo es ser un animal; ser solo espiritu es ser un angel. combinarlos es ser un ser humano


----------



## Merlin

egilmela said:
			
		

> Could anyone translate this sentence in their language?
> 
> 
> _To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to _
> _be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_
> 
> 
> Well, in my Language (Filipino) you can translate it in many ways. Here's my idea on this.
> 
> Para maging tanging katawan kailangang maging hayop; Para maging tanging spiritu kaliangang maging angel; Kung pagsasamahin ay magiging tao.
> 
> Hope I contributed something. I'm not perfect so as everyone else. So feel free to correct me. See ya around guys!


----------



## mataripis

egilmela said:


> Could anyone translate this sentence in their language?
> 
> 
> _To be only body is to be an animal; To be only spirit is to
> be an angel; To fuse them together is to be a human being_
> 
> 
> It would be nice to have it in many languages.
> 
> Thankz in advance!


   In Tagalog: Ang Hayop ay nilalang na may katawan lamang; Ang mga Anghel ay mga diwang nilalang. Pagpinagsanib ang ganitong katangian ay siyang Tawo na nga.   In De pa Dumaget;    On Haey-op ey te lawes la, On benela bentay ay nelalang aa dewe.Be ide ey pinagkoloy on maginon ey Agta di.


----------

