tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 03 18:42:03 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC on naming convention
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC on naming convention
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 96 23:35:45 UT
December 02, 1996 11:27 PM, jatlh charghwI':
> I agree that non-passive voice interpretations are valid. I do
> not agree that passive voice interpretations are invalid. That
> is the reason I felt compelled to respond. It is one thing to
> say, "Another way to say this is..." and altogether something
> else to say, "The way you said it is wrong..." I was objecting
> to the rejection of passive voice as a valid translation. If he
> had merely pointed out an equivalent (if somewhat awkward
> sounding) alternative translation, that would be different. But
> he specifically objected to the use of the passive voice, and I
> reject that objection.
No, I didn't *object* to it as *invalid*, I suggested that beginners avoid
being confused by it by staying away from using the passive voice. It is
absolutely NOT wrong to translate it into the passive voice. It can just be
confusing to the beginner.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96925.3