tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 21 07:27:55 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)

ja' charghwI':
>...logic strikes me as very similar to my own when I
>deduced that Okrand's example in TKD's phrase section {quSvamDaq
>ba'lu''a'?"} was a mistake. 

[I'll address this comparison in a separate post.]

>It didn't follow the rules given in
>the grammar section of TKD.

It doesn't follow any of the *examples* given in that section of the
text, but it certainly goes along with the *definition* of {-lu'} as 
"indefinite subject".  The examples all had objects, and all could be 
translated into English quite smoothly using passive voice -- indeed, 
{quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'} itself is translated using passive voice, though
it's not a direct translation:  "Is this seat taken?"

The special meaning of verb prefixes does seem to lead to a bit of a 
difficulty.  They all should be of the "third-person singular object" 
variety, with the nominal subject agreeing with the actual object of 
the verb.  Since there isn't a "no subject" prefix, there isn't a way 
to indicate "no object" with {-lu'} while still following this rule.
So there is obviously some sort of unstated rule that comes into play 
when putting {-lu'} on a verb which lacks an object.  The explanation 
in TKD of how verb prefixes work with {-lu'} is already incomplete -- 
{lu-} is ignored, as I recall -- so I don't have a problem accepting
an implied "null prefix can indicate no object when used with {-lu'}"
rule from the {quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'} example.

>What ultimately resolved this apparent paradox was the simple
>fact that transitive verbs with {-lu'} are simply handled
>differently than intransitive verbs with {-lu'}...

The transitive/intransitive distinction is important only for the
English translation.  Intransitive and passive voice don't work well 
together unless there are extra words in the sentence that can be used
"creatively" to smooth it out.  But in Klingon, whether or not there's
an object doesn't affect the ability to have an indefinite subject.

The only way I see them "handled differently" is that the null prefix 
has been co-opted -- or corrupted? :-) -- to be able to indicate "no
subject *and* no object".

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level