LOTR

The moment was all, the moment was enough. – Virginia Woolf

Good things make choices difficult, bad things leave no choice. – Michelle Cohen Corasanti, The Almond Tree

LOTR text internet archive

• Evil fucks up because evil people fundamentally cannot imagine that others are not motivated by the same things as them.

• Evil is its own undoing. Tolkein makes it clear that while Evil betrays its own purpose it is not self defeating. Good must still struggle and sacrifice in order to pvercome Evil at great cost.

LOTR The White Rider, page 497: ‘What then shall I say?’ said Gandalf, and paused for a while in thought. ‘This in brief is how I see things at the moment, if you wish to have a piece of my mind as plain as possible. The Enemy, of course, has long known that the Ring is abroad, and that it is borne by a hobbit. He knows now the number of our Company that set out from Rivendell, and the kind of each of us. But he does not yet perceive our purpose clearly. He supposes that we were all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream. In which no doubt you will see our good fortune and our hope. For imagining war he has let loose war, believing that he has no time to waste; for he that strikes the first blow, if he strikes it hard enough, may need to strike no more. So the forces that he has long been preparing he is now setting in motion, sooner than he intended. Wise fool. For if he had used all his power to guard Mordor, so that none could enter, and bent all his guile to the hunting of the Ring, then indeed hope would have faded: neither Ring nor bearer could long have eluded him. But now his eye gazes abroad rather than near at home; and mostly he looks towards Minas Tirith. Very soon now his strength will fall upon it like a storm.

• traitors ultimately betray their own side too and end up destroying themselve

‘For already he knows that the messengers that he sent to waylay the Company have failed again. They have not found the Ring. Neither have they brought away any hobbits as hostages. Had they done even so much as that, it would have been a heavy blow to us, and it might have been fatal. But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower. For the Enemy has failed — so far. Thanks to Saruman.’

“Then is not Saruman a traitor?’ said Gimli.

‘Indeed yes,’ said Gandalf. ‘Doubly. And is not that strange? Nothing that we have endured of late has seemed so grievous as the treason of Isengard. Even reckoned as a lord and captain Saruman has grown very strong. He threatens the Men of Rohan and draws off their help from Minas Tirith, even as the main blow is approaching from the East. Yet a treacherous weapon is ever a danger to the hand. Saruman also had a mind to capture the Ring, for himself, or at least to snare some hobbits for his evil purposes. So between them our enemies have contrived only to bring Merry and Pippin with marvellous speed, and in the nick of time, to Fangorn, where otherwise they would never have come at all!

• Gandalf and Frodo: what to do with the time that is given to us?

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Bilbo Baggins: You step on too the road, and you don’t know where you might swept of too.

Sam: “It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going, because they were holding on to something. That there is some good in this world, and it’s worth fighting for.”

peter ustinov 1921-2004, British actor

• Dear Me, Peter Ustinov reads from his autobiography

• An audience with Peter Ustinov 1988, hilarious

German 德国姓名

德语名词有性别和单复数的区分，还有格的区分.动词有时态的区分（现在时，过去时，将来时，还有虚拟时，虚拟式中还分现在，过去和将来，等等）。

德语动词的前缀和中文里的偏旁有几分相似，从偏旁可以看出这个词的大概意思。前缀re- 的意思是”重新来过“，”重复“ 的意思。比如re-organisieren(基本词是“ 组织”的意思)，有了前缀，就是“重组” 的意思， re-novieren (基本词是变新的，有了前缀，就是“翻修”，“整修”的意思，比如翻修房屋。re-kultivieren (基本词是耕作，栽培的意思，有了前缀，就是“回归生态自然”，“重新栽培”的意思。比如将废弃的矿山改变成湖泊，种上树木等，就是“re-kultivieren“ 的措施。

又如前缀ent-, 它是“解除”，“释放出”的意思：ent-wickeln 词根是包裹，捆绑，缠绕的意思，加上前缀 ent, 就是放开这种束缚，如果用在小孩子身上，就是 孩子的“发育成长”，用在事业，事态方面，就是事业，事态的“发展”了。又比如形容词 fremd, 它是“生疏”，“陌生”的意思，加上前缀 ent-fremden, 就是释放生疏，陌生，用在人际关系上，就是两者关系疏远，甚至发生猜忌了。

又如前缀un，它主要置于形容词之前，也可置于名词和动词之前，主要作用是否定词根的内容，和中文里的“不”意思几乎完全一样，比如：“可能的” möglich, 加上前缀 un, 变成 un-möglich, 就是“不可能”。“可以想象” , denkbar, 加上前缀 un, 变成 un-denkbar, 就是“不可想象”。又如：genau, 准确，加上前缀 un, 变成 ungenau, 就是“不准确”。

数目 Summe, 花费 Kosten, 数量 Menge, 加上个前缀 un, 成了Un-summe, Un-kosten, Un-menge，就是“极大的数目”，“巨额花费”和“不计其数”的意思，和中文里的“无数”，强调了数量的巨大。

在名词“人“， Mensch, 前面加上个前缀 un, 成了Un-mensch, 就是 “不是人”。在德语和中文里，“不是人”都是骂人的话，都是情绪的发泄。还有名词“东西”, Ding, 加上前缀 un, 成了Un –ding, 就是 “不是东西”，在中文里这是骂人的话，德语里也一样。如果说他（或她）“不是个东西”，“不是个玩意儿“So ein Unding!“, 那也和在中文里一样，是很重的骂人话。

德语后缀置于动词，名词或形容词的后面。比如置于动词后面的有- ung: laden (装载) 动词变成 Ladung，就是名词了; 置于形容词后面的有：- heit, 比如形容词 frei （自由）加上后缀-heit就变成 名词自由 Freiheit; 置于名词后面的有后缀 –schaft, 如果放在一个名词如“邻居“ Nachbar 后面，就成了 Nachbarschaft, 就成了邻居群体的集合名词。一个名词教师 Lehrer,加上后缀-schaft,就成了教师群体Lehrerschaft.

• Spitzname 是绰号。前德国足球明星Bastian Schweinsteiger的绰号Schwein。德语里猪既可以是好意思，也可以是坏意思：说“你是猪”，就是很严重的骂人话, 但说“我有猪”，那就是“我很幸运“的意思了。

后缀还能变动名词的大小，甚至对名词注入作者和说话人的感情。比如：后缀-chen:名词 Haus(房子)，加上后缀-chen, 就是Häuschen, 成了“小房子”，“可爱的房子”。又如名词Kind (孩子)，加上后缀 –chen, 就成了Kindchen, 就是“可爱的孩子”了。名词父亲 Vater, 加上-chen, 变成Väterchen, 当然不能译成“小爸爸”，而是女儿发嗲，撒娇时对父亲的称呼了，比如：“好爸爸”，“爸爸耶”之类。

后缀还能变动词为动词的主体，人。如：动词prüfen （考试，考验）加上后缀 –ling 就成了名词 Prüfling (应试者，考生)。

德语常有两个词或两个以上的词组成一个词的现象，它们的内容也是需要认真对待，不能马虎的： 这里举一些例子：母亲（Mutter）和 爱（Liebe）组成一个词 Mutterliebe, 就是“母爱”，顺序是：“母亲”置于前面，是她爱孩子，她主动。动物（Tier）和爱（Liebe）也能组成一词，Tierliebe, 就是人类“爱动物”，“动物”虽然在前面，但是却是被动的。再有一词Affenliebe, 前面是“猴子”，后面是“爱”，这里既不是猴子爱别的什么动物，也不是什么别的动物爱猴子，而是形容父母对孩子的溺爱。

德语的组合词太多，有的很长，有几十个字母组成一个词的，甚至有上百个字母的：这里仅举两个例子： Donau-dampf-schifffahrts-gesellschafts-kapitäns-mütze：多瑙河汽船航运公司船长的帽子（这不算太长，只有四十几个字母），还有更长的： Schauspieler-betreuungs-flugbuchungs-statisterie-leitungs-gastspiel-organisations-spezialist ：演员服务，订机票及票友管理和客串组织专家。（这里有85个字母）

• 昵称，德语里叫Kosename。昵称只在相爱的人或夫妻间用，或者非常亲近的亲戚和朋友间用。比如，原名叫乌苏拉 (Ursula) 的昵称就变成了乌西 （Ursi）。通常的昵称有的根本没有名字，只有叫“我的公主“，”我的宝贝“ 之类。

• 姓氏的法律地位重于名字，德语里姓的数量多得难以计数，而名相对来说还是比较少的。 德国的人名数量不多，而且欧洲国家的人名大多差不多，男女名字发音不同，字母不同，但实际上是一样的。但是姓氏数量庞大，千变万化，大体上有以下几类：

  • 按身高定姓氏，如克莱恩（klein, 小个子），格罗斯（groß, 大个子），朗格（lang, 高个子），库尔兹（kurz, 矮个子）。

  • 按头发颜色定姓氏，如 施瓦茨 （schwarz, 黑色），维斯 （weiss, 白色）。

  • 按其他身体特征定姓氏，如 林克 （link, 左撇子）。

  • 按性格特征定姓氏，如 居恩 （Kühn, 勇敢），福罗姆 （fromm, 虔诚），古特 （gut, 好），比泽 （böse, 凶狠）。

  • 也有按生活特点定姓氏的： 如 诺伊曼 （Neumann, 新来的人）

  • 比较普通的姓氏大多和出生地，住地和职业有关，下面举几个例子：

  • 和出生地有关的：如姓法兰克的，来自法兰肯地区(Franken), 姓海斯的， 来自黑森州 （Hessen），姓珀尔的(Pohl)，来自波兰或和波兰有关的地区。

  • 和住地有关的姓氏：如姓艾波纳的，住在平原地区（Ebne）。姓博格的，住在山区（Berge）。姓库尔曼的，住在低洼地区（Kuhlmann）。和职业有关的姓氏，如贝克尔（就是面包师，Bäcker, Becker）。

  • 也有用动植物来作姓氏的，如：哈泽 （Hase, 兔子，还是野兔子）， 福克斯（Fuchs, 狐狸），沃尔夫（Wolf，狼）。如：波洛姆 （Blume, 花， 真有点像是中国姓），基希鲍姆 （Kirschbaum, 樱桃树）。

  • 也有用整个句子作为一个姓氏的，如：克洛芬施泰因 Klopfenstein（Klopf den Stein, 砸石子），舒尔腾勃兰特 Schultenbrand (Schür das Feuer, 煽火)。

  • 不得不提起: 德国姓名中也有不少外来名字，有意大利化的，法国化的，还有斯堪的纳维亚的，波罗的海地区的，

Kant

• empiricists vs. rationalists

• Locke-Hume school vs. Descartes-Leibniz school

• avoid paralyzing forms of skepticism that would take reality to be utterly unknowable

• the major disagreement between them pertains to the epistemic resources with which to establish the nature of that reality and the means by which to acquire valid knowledge of it.

To assume, as traditional empiricism does assume, that access to reality is unavoidably mediated by perceptual or sensory processes implies that what is directly known is only the contents of consciousness. There is then no means of testing the agreement between these contents and reality, for all the evidence that might be collected for the purpose becomes just further conscious content. Skepticism waits at the end of the process, for every knowledge claim is ultimately challenged by the recognition that what is known is only what is found in conscious experience. “Reality” as such falls beyond this.

Rationalism suffers its own limitations, not least of which is something of a distain for “mere facts.” Recognizing the limitations of perceptual modes of knowing, the rationalists often go beyond caution and simply rule out the senses as at all relevant to the search for “truth,” which is assumed to be in the form of ever more general and grand systems.

The passive relationship between physical impingements and sensory responses does not establish “experience,” for the latter is an ordered, unified, and coherent conscious event. For there to be experience as such there must be governing principles that ordain the manner in which external impingements will be registered. The resulting order and organization are not “given” by the stimuli themselves but are determined by the very mode of sensibility. Thus, empiricists are correct in regarding knowledge as arising from experience and rationalists in recognizing that such knowledge is nonetheless not grounded in experience.