tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 08:40:37 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC on naming convention

The reason I prefer the passive voice when translating {-lu'} is 
that, since English simply lacks any equivalent construction to 
an indefinite subject, both the vague subject "one" and the 
passive voice both approximate this concept. Meanwhile, the 
passive voice does a better job of moving the focus away from 
the subject and toward the verb and its object, which seems to 
be the point of the indefinite subject.

We have a pronoun for an indefinite noun: {vay'}. If {Xlu'} is 
the exact equivalent of {X vay'}, then why bother having {Xlu'}? 
Meanwhile, if the difference is that with the indefinite 
subject, the focus is on every other part of the sentence EXCEPT 
the subject, that might even explain why {-lu'} and {laH} are 
naturally exclusive. 

Ability is attributed to the subject. There must be a subject to 
have the ability. That tagging of the trait of ability to the 
subject implies a small degree of focus on the subject. That 
would make {vay'} a natural choice. If you are using {vay'}, you 
don't need {-lu'}.

Meanwhile, when {-laH} is absent, there is apparently a subtle 
difference between {Xlu'} and {X vay'}. Just as you can have 
intransitive verbs, or verbs which don't mention the direct 
object because it is not important {DaH jISop}, {-lu'} gives us 
a verb where the subject is unimportant enough to not even 
mention. That is what I see {-lu'} doing and I think the passive 
voice comes closer in most cases to describing this than do 
other means of expressing an indefinite subject. "The 
shuttlecraft is wrecked," places less focus on the subject than 
"One wrecked the shuttlecraft." That is why I prefer the passive 
voice in most cases.

charghwI'

On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:10:07 -0800 Marc Ruehlaender 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ghItlh ghunchu'wI'
> > 
> > I can certainly understand "The shuttle is wrecked" to refer to
> > the process of wrecking the shuttle.  It depends on whether you
> > read "is wrecked" as passive for "wrecks", or if you think that
> > "wrecked" is an adjective.  The English is ambiguous, but there
> > can definitely be an equivalence between "it wrecks the shuttle"
> > and "the shuttle is wrecked" in my view.
> > 
> I agree to some point. What I should have said is that I think
> {-lu'} should not be used to describe a state but only to describe
> an action. charghwI' mentioned in an other post that the stative
> was equivalent to an action in the past. I'm not sure but I don't
> think so. _Maybe_ it's about the same as a _completed_ action.
> But even then I see a subtle difference between "one has wrecked
> the shuttle" and "the shuttle is wrecked"(stative).
> (I'm NOT talking about things like "the shuttle is being wrecked"
> or "the shuttle is wrecked by blah", which are of course reasonably
> translated by -lu')
> 
> HomDoq
> 

Will Martin
UVA ITC SCD Desktop Computing

Back to archive top level