tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 15 12:31:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghunlu'wI'
ja' "Anthony.Appleyard" <[email protected]>:
>In writing about the recent word processor program mishandling of apostrophes
>and subsequent emailer mishandling of high-order characters, I was again stuck
>when I wanted a reasonably short word or expression for `computer program'.
That's only because you were thinking in terms of the words you tend to use
in English. "Computer program" is a very general concept, and in just about
all contexts either can be replaced with a much more specific term, or can
be avoided entirely by talking about the action involved.
>Here **{ghunlu'wI'} wanted to be used, but, as before, was `bounced out by the
>guards'.
I really can't make {-lu'} (subject is indefinite) and {-wI'} (subject is
the thing we're talking about) coexist. At least not logically, not with
the grammar we know. But there's always a chance that something that has
no basis in logic is actually following a grammatical rule we don't yet
understand. Consider the use of {-moH} on transitive verbs, for example.
> {-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
The idea is the same whether it's represented in English with passive voice
or with the impersonal "one". That doesn't mean that {-lu'} can sometimes
*mean* passive voice, any more than {-bogh} can sometimes *mean* "which".
The verb suffix {-lu'} in Klingon and passive voice in English can express
the same idea. So can an impersonal "one" in English.
ja' charghwI':
>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.
I'm being a bit nit-picky here, charghwI', but I think the distinction is
an important one. {-lu'} *in Klingon* can carry the same meaning that
passive voice *in English* does. That doesn't imply that there's anything
called "passive voice" in Klingon grammar.
-- ghunchu'wI'