tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 18 19:38:15 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -lu'
- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 94 22:38:12 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark J. Reed" at Dec 16, 94 2:05 pm
According to Mark J. Reed:
>
> ghItlh charghwI':
> \ This is my point. If I say:
> \
> \ matlh HoHqanglu'
> \
> \ With current evidence, I cannot accept the translation:
> \
> \ "One is willing to kill Maltz."
> "Someone", actually. What current evidence causes you to reject this
> translation?
Mostly, I wanted to acknowledge the point you make later, but
now I realize that my point on this example and your point on a
later example are related. Just as by my argument that the
focus is shifted to the object too much for "One/Someone is
willing to kill Maltz," to be an acceptable translation, it is
also true that the generalized/vague nature of the subject of a
verb with {-lu'} makes this a bad translation. Either my point
OR your point lead to the same conclusion.
> \ I have to accept the translation:
> \
> \ "Maltz is willing to be killed."
> I have difficulty accepting that the meaning of "to be willing" imparted by
> -qang is somehow magically transferred to the *object* of the sentence by
> the further addition of -lu'.
Magic has little to do with it. Again, it ties in to your own
examples below.
> I don't see -lu' as equivalent to vay', either; I interpret a sentence with
> vay' as referring to a particular, but unidentified, party, e.g.
>
> nughoS vay'! Someone's coming!
Okay, how about {matlh HoHqang vay'} vs. {matlh HoHqanglu'}? In
the first example, {vay'} has more of a specific identity; the
person who would be Maltz's killer. That person can be willing
to kill Maltz.
Meanwhile, the indefinite subject isn't quite there enough to
have volition ascribed to him or her. It makes a lot more sense
to consider that Maltz is willing to be killed by "one". See, I
think the difference between {vay'} and {-lu'} is largely the
difference between "someone" and "one".
You point out the difference between "You will be remembered
with honor," and "Someone will remember you with honor."
Meanwhile, "You will be remembered with honor," is the rough
equivalent to "One will remember you with honor."
It makes a lot more sense to say, "Someone is willing to kill
Maltz," than to say, "One is willing to kill Maltz." Meanwhile,
that more sensible sentence would, by your suggestion, be
translated as {matlh HoHqang vay'}. So how can we translate the
"one" version instead of the "someone" version?
If we take the passive voice version of the translation, it can
easily become "Maltz is willing to be killed." That subjugates
the subject enough that it has the same kind of vagueness as
"one" instead of "someone". But a non-passive version of this
sentence becomes quite difficult. "One kills the willing
Maltz"? Well, not really, though since Klingon lacks an
irrealis, perhaps this is closer than we might think...
In general, I think TKD and canon give us too little material
to nail this one down. We are left to fly by the seat of our
pants, and MY pants tell me that {vay'} behaves like a normal
subject, while {-lu'} shifts the focus to the object, very much
like the English passive voice. It is not the exact equivalent
of the English passive, but when dealing with a type 2 verb
suffix, I strongly suspect (reinforced by our one canon example
in TKD) that the willingness is ascribed to the object and not
the subject.
> Whereas the subject in a -lu' construction is completely vague, either
> unimportant or general. I mean, imagine if Kruge had said to Valkris:
>
> batlh lIqawtaH vay' Someone will remember you with honor
>
> instead of
>
> batlh Daqawlu'taH You will be remembered with honor
>
> The former implies that there exists some person somewhere that
> will remember her with honor; the latter implies that it is a general
> state of affairs, that anyone who remembers her will think of her honorably.
> (In the former case, Kruge might even be referring to himself obliquely,
> although obliqueness doesn't seem to be way up there on the list of Klingon
> character traits.)
Well stated case. I agree with what you propose, though I am
not sure why you have a problem with my examples, which seem to
me to follow your own reasoning.
> All IMESHO.
As are my own statements.
> -marqoS
> --
> Mark J. Reed
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |