tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 24 12:28:50 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'}
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'}
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:29:46 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
Qermaq wrote:
> Passive tense is considered weak in English prose. It is not
> active.
Passive tense is considered weak in English because 1) it puts the
weight of the sentence on the verb to be, instead of on a strong
verb, and because 2) it is used to shy away from saying WHO did
something. For example, Qermaq could have used active voice in the
first sentence above, saying "English teachers consider ..." or "I
consider ..." but he slid out of having to say exactly *who* does the
considering with passive voice. The same thing could be done in
Klingon with {...net qel}. I think passive voice was the best choice
for that sentence, as it isn't the grammarians or the English
teachers or Qermac that the sentence was about. Active and passive
are opposites. In a passive voice sentence something happens to
something. In an active sentence something does something.
The rebels were killed by the loyalists. (passive)
The loyalists killed the rebels. (active)
In Klingon:
matlhwI'pu'mo' lotlhwI'pu' luHoHlu'
lotlhwI'pu' HoH matlhwI'pu'
The first sentence could be said to be less preferable because it is
longer and less direct.
> I do not find <-lu'> to be weak or inactive, aside from the
> lack of an explicit subject. Unlike English, where the change from
> "Someone sees the ship" to "The ship is seen" is carried out by
> drastic re-shuffling of word placement and form, <Duj legh> to <Duj
> leghlu'> is so much simpler a transition. Would a Klingon hear
> these two sentences as differently as we hear the two in English?
Not as differently, because an additional, weaker verb is not
inserted, but the shift in focus from someone doing something to
someone haveing something done to them persists.
> I find the passive tense to be a convenient way to
> translate Klingon <-lu'> usage - I do not argue with that.
> Perhaps it's simply a semantic issue, but I fail to see a benefit
> in looking at <-lu'> constructions as passive voice - in fact,
> learning to see these verbs as not passive voice frees us from
> the need to worry about whether the usage is translatable into
> passive or not. I don't honestly know if a Klingon would hear
> <Ha'DIbaH Surghlu'> as "The animal is skinned". Perhaps, but I'm
> not sure.
It suddenly occurs to me that people may be avoiding saying "passive
voice" because they have been taught that passive is bad, both
through being scolded for it in high school, and through association
with negative concepts like 'passive victim' or 'passive lover.' It
shouldn't carry those connotations any more than tlhIngan Hol chuvmey
should remind you of furry food. Misuse or overuse of passive tense
is bad. There's nothing wrong with it per se. Strong as {-lu'} may
be, both of the following are ridiculous.
veHDaq SuvwI' lupoQlu'. lenglu'. ngemDaq He ghoSlu'. bIQtIq
juSlu'. 'uQvaD wej targh luHoHlu'. nuH lujejmoHlu'. ra'wI' naDlu'.
"The warriors were needed on the border. The journey was made. First
the woods were traversed, then the river was crossed. Three targs
were killed for supper. Weapons were sharpened. The commander was
commended."
Maybe it would work as a literary device to describe a shadowy secret
army, something going on in the background of the story and not fully
described. Maybe.
- Qov