Am 27.11.2018 um 15:30 schrieb De'vID:
> {nIteb} describes the situation of an action, the other is an
> adjective.
> You could even say {nIteb jImob}. "I am (the only one who is) alone".
>
> That meaning is {neH} "only", not {nIteb}, which means "acting alone".
Ehm.... not exactly. When {neH} follows a verb, it trivializes the
action. The meaning of only is with nouns only (pun intended).
Of course. I'm obviously talking about when {neH} follows the pronoun {jIH}.
What I tried to express above was like "only I am in this room and
nobody else".
Which is not {nIteb} but {neH}. {nIteb} means "acting alone", not "only (alone)". They're quite distinct ideas which English confuses by using the same word.
Also remember the phrase {nIteb SuvnIS SuvwI'} "A warrior must fight
alone". He can still fight in a group, but nobody will help him. So he
fight "all alone", being the only person hitting the enemy. And then, he
cannot be {mob} because there's at least the enemy next to him.
The distinction I'm pointing out is one between {nIteb} and {neH} (following a noun).
If {nIteb jImob} means "I am (the only one who is) alone" as you wrote, then {nIteb SuvnIS SuvwI'} would mean "The warrior (is the only one who) needs to fight". That's not what it means. That meaning is {neH}: {SuvnIS SuvwI' neH}.
> {nIteb jImob} "Acting by myself, I am alone." (Perhaps you are
> clarifying that nobody has isolated you.)
>
> {jImob jIH neH} "I alone (i.e., only I) am alone". (Perhaps you are the
> only one without a partner at a social dance.)
Yes, agreed, that's what I wrote in my first line.
You wrote: {nIteb jImob} "I am (the only one who is) alone".
This is the opposite of what I wrote above. Your English corresponds to {jImob jIH neH}.
--
De'vID