tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 14 13:14:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ghunlu'wI'

According to David Trimboli:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony.Appleyard <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 10:23 AM
> Subject: ghunlu'wI'
> 
> 
> >{-lu'} is described as an impersonal subject, not a passive-voice
> >marker; but according to TKD what looks to me like some element of treating
> >{-lu} as a passive voice marker has already got into the syntax, e.g.:-
> >    Dalegh                   you see it
> >    Daleghlu'  one sees you, you are seen
> 
> TKD p. 39 says sentences with {-lu'} are often *translated* with English
> passive voice, but that does not mean that it's also a Klingon passive voice
> marker.  Klingon does not have passive voice.
> 
> {Daleghlu'} "someone or something unspecified sees you"
> 
> In English this sentence is equivalent in meaning to "you are seen."
> There's only one way to write this meaning in Klingon, not two.
> 
> SuStel
> Stardate 97872.0

While I have heard this said many times and I accept it simply
because my feelings on it are not strong enough to do battle
over it, I'd like to just once register my disagreement on this
point about passive voice. My interest in language is in
function. The terms seem arbitrary except as good descriptors
of function.

Now, what function does the Klingon indefinite subject have on a
transitive verb? It removes all focus on the identity of the
subject, shifting the focus to the object of the action.

What function does the English passive voice have on a
transitive verb? It removes all focus on the identity of the
subject, shifting the focus to the object of the action.

Where this equivalence falls apart is with intransitive verbs.
You can't have an intransitive verb in the passive voice. I
know. I tried.

So, I agree that {-lu'} is not always the same thing as passive
voice, but I honestly believe that all these passionate
declarations that {-lu'} is NEVER the same thing as passive
voice are weak, misguided and without a great deal of merit.
The whole reason it really is okay to translate most instances
of {-lu'} as passive voice is because in most cases the
function of {-lu} is EXACTLY the same the function of passive
voice.

{-lu'} is more versatile than passive voice because, as is
shown in {quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'?} in the phrase section of TKD,
you can use {-lu'} with intransitive verbs, while no matter HOW
much you twist English passive voice around, it cannot be used
in this instance to translate {-lu'}.

But to say {vIqIplu'pu'} does not REALLY mean "I have been
hit," because what it REALLY means is, "One has hit me," is one
extremely weak argument. Excuse me, but these sentences have
equivalent meaning and "I have been hit," is a much more
natural method of expressing this thought in English. It does
NOT have a different meaning. It merely has a different
grammatical structure. English has two ways to say this and one
of them is passive voice.

There. I said it. And I'm GLAD I said it. I will likely step
aside when the inevitable storm responds in disagreement. Say
what you will, but when used with transitive verbs, {-lu'}
does, in fact, act as passive voice.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level