tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 22 10:19:40 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

(I apologize if this is a resubmission - the next two I sent made it, but
this one never showed up...)

ghItlh ghunchu'wI':

>The special meaning of verb prefixes does seem to lead to a bit of a
>difficulty. They all should be of the "third-person singular object"
>variety, with the nominal subject agreeing with the actual object of
>the verb. Since there isn't a "no subject" prefix, there isn't a way
>to indicate "no object" with {-lu'} while still following this rule.
>So there is obviously some sort of unstated rule that comes into play
>when putting {-lu'} on a verb which lacks an object. The explanation
>in TKD of how verb prefixes work with {-lu'} is already incomplete --
>{lu-} is ignored, as I recall -- so I don't have a problem accepting
>an implied "null prefix can indicate no object when used with {-lu'}"
>rule from the {quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'} example.

I translate <quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'> as "Does someone sit in this chair?" It is
most definitely NOT "In this chair, is someone sat?" The English passive is
only useful sometimes - not always - in translating <-lu'>. I routinely
translate constructions in their "Someone or something..." forms first, THEN
rephrase into passive English if it is more clear. It's worked so far.
I find this Klingon sentence very ugly, but only because it seems ill-suited
as to its real meaning in context. I would never guess a Klingon would need
to ask if he/she was about to sit in a reserved seat (unless they wanted to
avoid confrontation?!?).

>The transitive/intransitive distinction is important only for the
>English translation. Intransitive and passive voice don't work well
>together unless there are extra words in the sentence that can be used
>"creatively" to smooth it out. But in Klingon, whether or not there's
>an object doesn't affect the ability to have an indefinite subject.

teHqu'! This is the best reasoning I've seen to debunk the
"<-lu'>-is-Klingon-passive" argument.

>The only way I see them "handled differently" is that the null prefix
>has been co-opted -- or corrupted? :-) -- to be able to indicate "no
>subject *and* no object".

Technically, there IS a subject - we don't know it, or the sentence doesn't
require it. But it's there. The only difference I see is that you can't
translate intransitive verbs with <-lu'> directly into English passive voice
the same way you can with transitive verbs. You must go the LONG way to get
the true meaning.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level