tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 14 13:22:06 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu'
According to [email protected]:
>
> ghItlhta' charghwI':
> >First, apparently the omission of 3rd person in the passive
> >voice description was intended to allow the potential for the
> >use of passive voice with an intransitive verb, like ba'lu'.
> >"One sits." There is no way to translate that into a passive
> >construction in English.
>
> >Still, whenever the verb is transitive, evidence is strong that
> >the passive voice is called for, even with the third person. In
> >addition to making the subject indefinite, most canon examples
> >of {-lu'} also shift the focus to the object to such an extent
> >that the meanings of the suffixes get applied to the object
> >instead of the subject.
>
> This is exactly where we diverge opinion-wise on {-lu'}. It is my personal
> belief that you have so much influence from the concept of passive in English
> that you transfer that onto the way you think of {-lu'}, as do many people.
Not really. Originally, from reading TKD, I thought it was
pretty much the same as the passive voice. Then I met {ba'lu'},
which CAN'T be thought of as the passive voice. After that, I
thought that the focus was on "One does X", with the passive
voice as another way of expressing it, like "X is done".
Then I ran into the example you bring up below and decided that
when the verb is transitive, the passive voice is the BETTER
translation because the focus is shifted from the subject to
the object. More to follow.
> That's not your fault, but I try to look at {-lu'} much more non-objectively.
> Nothing in TKD really suggest that {-lu'} has anything to do with passive.
"Verbs with {-lu'} are often translated into the English
passive voice." I would not call that "nothing".
...
> You said that in most canon examples using {-lu'}, the suffixes apply more to
> the object than the indefinite subject. Well, let's examine the verb suffixes
> that apply to nouns, specifically the syntactic subject: type 2's,...
> Only one canon example uses
> {-lu'} with a type 2:
>
> {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} = "it made him/her willing to die" (TKD pg 45)
This is the example that brought me to my current opinion.
> The "it" in his translation is not in the Klingon. We can all observe this
> very confidently. If the "it" were changed to "something," then that would be
> a satisfactorily more accurate translation?
Agreed.
> In this case the {-qang} would
> apply to the syntactic object anyways, since the verb {HeghqangmoH} literally
> means "cause X to be willing to die," where X is the object and the noun to
> which {-qang} really applies.
I disagree. I think {HeghqangmoH} means "It is willing to cause
him to die." I think that {-lu'} is the only thing that makes
this willingness become ascribed to the object instead of the
subject. That's the whole point.
> There are no other examples like this, so
> insight on {-lu'} used with type 2's goes only so far. But we do have
> {ba'lu'} as a canonical verb, showing that intransitives do take {-lu'}. As
> much as some people may not like it, that's canon, and it does fit in with
> the grammar as a whole. {-lu'} has little to do with the object.
It becomes clear to me that {-lu'} behaves one way with
intransitive verbs and another with transitive ones.
> [Side note: Those who observe that since {HeghqangmoH} means "cause to be
> willing to die" might wonder how one translates "be willing to cause to die."
> {HeghmoHqang} is ungrammatical, so in Klingon "cause to be willing to die"
> and "be willing to cause to die" are both {HeghqangmoH} with context sorting
> out which meaning is meant. This applies to all verbs using {-moH} and a type
> 2 suffix.]
I'll consider this opinion and see if I can take it to be my
own. At first glance, I can't. I'd like to look through some
canon first.
> Okrand's descriptions often backfire when he says something about how Klingon
> might be translated. Saying {-lu'} is often translated with passive in
> English has lead some to believe that {-lu'} is passive. But the truth is
> that it's meaning often (but not always) corresponds to the *semantic* value
> expressed by passive in English. Nowhere does he imply a *grammatical*
> relation between {-lu'} and passive voice.
I don't see our opinions as totally opposed here, but still
different. I don't think that {-lu'} simply means passive, but
I do think that it means more than an equivalent sentence with
{vay'} as the subject. When applied to a transitive verb, it
seems to throw the focus to the object, much as the passive
voice does in English, and in particular, with Type 2 verb
suffixes, the meaning is apparently shifted from the subject to
the object. That's my point.
> The opinions expressed herein are MINE! Do you here?! ALL MINE!!!
> Bwahahaha!!! Sorry dad, I'll try settle down before I hurt myself again.
As mine are but opinions as well.
> Guido
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |