tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 09:06:08 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC on naming convention



> The reason I prefer the passive voice when translating {-lu'} is 
> that, since English simply lacks any equivalent construction to 
> an indefinite subject, both the vague subject "one" and the 
> passive voice both approximate this concept. Meanwhile, the 
> passive voice does a better job of moving the focus away from 
> the subject and toward the verb and its object, which seems to 
> be the point of the indefinite subject.
> 
We agree completely. I'm simply saying that - coming from the
English and going to Klingon - you should be careful when
translating passive voice using {-lu'}. The other way is no
problem at all. English is very good at using passive voice,
so this should be how to translate {-lu'}. German e.g. is better
with active voice, so I prefer translating {-lu'} using "man",
the equivalent of the English "one", indicating indefinite subject.

> Meanwhile, when {-laH} is absent, there is apparently a subtle 
> difference between {Xlu'} and {X vay'}. Just as you can have 
> intransitive verbs, or verbs which don't mention the direct 
> object because it is not important {DaH jISop}, {-lu'} gives us 
> a verb where the subject is unimportant enough to not even 
> mention. That is what I see {-lu'} doing and I think the passive 
> voice comes closer in most cases to describing this than do 
> other means of expressing an indefinite subject. "The 
> shuttlecraft is wrecked," places less focus on the subject than 
> "One wrecked the shuttlecraft." That is why I prefer the passive 
> voice in most cases.
> 
However, I'd rather equate "One wrecked the shuttle" to "The shuttle
_has been_ wrecked" than to "The shuttle is wrecked" (of course
assuming that the latter is not used in an active sense but in a
stative sense - otherwise they are again identical to each other)

HomDoq



Back to archive top level