tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 28 18:38:19 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ke'Plak
ja' charghwI':
>Most of the time English Passive Voice and the Klingon {-lu'}
>are good translations for each other. I believe that it is a
>mistake to avoid using this tool out of some misguided
>principle that since they are not in all cases identical, they
>should not be equated under any circumstances.
>
>The majority of the time, they ARE the same. Deal with it.
I come at this from a slightly different angle. In most cases, both
English passive voice and Klingon {-lu'} can represent the same idea.
They aren't necessarily "translations for each other." They merely
are equally good at carrying a certain meaning. One of them does it
by "passivizing" the verb and making the object act like the subject.
The other does it by explicitly making the subject indefinite. They
are separate tools that happen both to apply to some situations. In
other situations, one of them fails to apply.
It's like the difference between saying "The majority of the time, a car
and a motorcycle ARE the same because they both can take you from one
place to another" and saying "Most of the time, either a motorcycle or
a car can be used to get from one place to another." Cars are enclosed
and can carry much more than a driver; motorcycles are small and more
fuel-efficient and are much easier to park. Depending on your needs,
sometimes one is more suited to the task than the other; sometimes both
will do the job equally well. But in no case is a motorcycle the same
thing as a car.
It's hard to make this point well without seeming to disagree with the
"other" side. It's just a small difference in perspective, which does
nothing to change the essential fact that, most of the time, the English
passive voice indeed can be used to translate an idea stated with the
Klingon {-lu'}, and vice versa.
-- ghunchu'wI'