tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 24 14:06:23 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
ja' charghwI':
>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.
We've been down this path before, and you keep forgetting that in
Klingon, {-lu'} works just as well on verbs which lack objects, but
English passive voice breaks down. Let's turn your argument around:
"The food was eaten" and {Soj Soplu'} are exact equivalents.
Meanwhile, you can say {Soplu'} and there is no equivalent
translation in English except "one eats." You have to abandon
passive voice in order to translate it.
That makes two important "real differences" between them. The way I
see it, they aren't anything like the same thing; they are two separate
but overlapping circles. In the common area, either Klingon {-lu'} or
English passive voice can represent the idea. But when there is a
subject, {-lu'} doesn't work, and when there isn't an object, passive
voice doesn't work.
>{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.
Meanwhile, {qetlu'} can be easily translated only as "one runs."
>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.
Think about the {qetlu'} example and reconsider your position. I
could point to more similar examples and say that {-lu'} is more
grammatically versatile than passive voice because it works on
intransitive verbs. The truth is that neither is a subset of the
other.
-- ghunchu'wI'