tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 23 08:30:45 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> mujang peHruS:
...
> >jIngochtaHvIS qechvam vIchel "passive voice" 'oSbe'bej wot mojaQ {-lu'}
>
> {-bej} is a bit too strong for this idea, in my opinion. TKD itself says
> that verbs with {-lu'} are often translated into the English passive voice.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
After thinking about this a LOT, I've decided to myself that the
only real difference between the passive voice and {-lu'} is
that the English passive voice has a mechanism for indicating
the subject, while the Klingon {-lu'} does not. "The officer was
hit," and {yaS qIplu'} are exact equivalents. Meanwhile, you can
say, "The officer was hit by the child," and there is no
equivalent translation in Klingon except {yaS qIp puq}. You have
to abandon {-lu'} in order to translate it.
{yaS qIplu'} can also be translated as "One hit the officer," or
"someone or something hit the officer," but these simply sound
awkward and do not as clearly offer the same meaning as the
passive voice "The officer was hit," does.
So, it is true that the passive voice and {-lu'} are not exact
equivalents because the passive voice is more grammatically
versatile than {-lu'}, but in terms of translation, {-lu'}
almost always is best translated using English passive voice,
while the reverse is not always true.
charghwI' 'utlh