tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 10:52:32 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:29:02 -0800 (PST) Neal Schermerhorn 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> (I apologize if this is a resubmission - the next two I sent made it, but
> this one never showed up...)
> 
> ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> 
> >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.

ghunchu'wI', if it was indeed you who said this, I'm startled at 
your apparent misunderstanding of this bit of grammar. I shared 
this exact perspective a lot of years ago until I just accepted 
the irregularity of the grammar here and drew a line between 
transitive and intransitive verbs. Transitive verbs behave as 
shown in the grammar section of TKD. Intransitive verbs behave 
as shown in this example and are NOT described in TKD grammar. 
There is no reversal of subject/object roles in the prefix. It 
is not that the prefix is corrupted or twisted. It is simply 
formed by different (unstated) rules. This is the same division 
as that which stands between {-lu'} verbs that act as passive 
voice and those which don't. Transitive verbs can always be 
translated as passive voice. Intransitive verbs can never be 
translated as passive voice. It is that simple. The only 
difference between {-lu'} and the passive voice is the way 
{-lu'} behaves on intransitive verbs.
 
> I translate <quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'> as "Does someone sit in this chair?" It is
> most definitely NOT "In this chair, is someone sat?" The English passive is
> only useful sometimes - not always - in translating <-lu'>. I routinely
> translate constructions in their "Someone or something..." forms first, THEN
> rephrase into passive English if it is more clear. It's worked so far.

I suggest that you need only look to see if the verb is 
transitive. If so, you can always translate it as passive voice. 
If not, you can never translate it into passive voice.

> I find this Klingon sentence very ugly, but only because it seems ill-suited
> as to its real meaning in context. I would never guess a Klingon would need
> to ask if he/she was about to sit in a reserved seat (unless they wanted to
> avoid confrontation?!?).

Besides that, unless the Klingon is blind and has merely 
memorized the seat's position and asks this question in the 
direction of the seat before sitting in someone's lap, the 
Klingon can obviously SEE whether or not someone is sitting 
there. Anyone of lesser rank who considers the chair reserved 
would obviously give up the chair for the speaker and if anyone 
of higher rank approached, the speaker would give up his chair 
whether it was reserved or not. Among those of equal rank, it's 
obviously first come, first served.

The only exception would be if a friend or mate were saving a 
seat for someone, in which case, the person taking the seat need 
not ask. As he started to sit, the person wishing to keep the 
seat for someone else would draw a weapon or take some other 
obvious defensive posture and the point would be well taken. A 
far more proper question would be something like:

quSvamvaD qaSuvnIS'a'?

Or if you are a puny human considering sitting next to a Klingon:

quSvamDaq jIba'chugh choHoH'a'?
 
> >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.
> 
> teHqu'! This is the best reasoning I've seen to debunk the
> "<-lu'>-is-Klingon-passive" argument.

I'm amazed at both of you. Just look. The prefix treatment is 
different depending upon whether or not the verb is transitive. 
The passive voice also always works or never works depending 
upon whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. It is a 
clear boundary for both.

The only reason that {-lu'} is not exactly like passive voice is 
because the passive voice needs an object and {-lu'} does not. I 
consider {-lu'} to be an augmented grammatical construction 
based upon the passive voice. In other words, {-lu'} really IS 
the passive voice, except that in addition, it works with 
intransitive verbs.

Klingon pronouns differentiate between the various persons. 
English does that and additionally differentiates gender. Does 
this mean that English pronouns are not really pronouns because 
they don't fit the exact same slots? No. English pronouns 
describe gender in addition to person. Klingon pronouns also act 
as verbs, which is an augmented function to those of English 
pronouns. They are still pronouns.

And {-lu'} is still passive voice. It has an additional 
function, which is to serve intransitive verbs. While it is 
doing that, it is not behaving as passive voice. The rest of the 
time it IS behaving as passive voice. Exactly like passive 
voice. There is NO difference between {-lu'} on a transitive 
verb and passive voice.

And there is no similarity between passive voice and {-lu'} on 
an intransitive verb. I challenge ANYONE to come up with {-lu'} 
on a transitive verb that can't be meaningfully translated into 
passive voice. I challenge ANYONE to come up with {-lu'} on an 
intransitive verb that CAN be translated into passive voice.

If you can do that, then you can "debunk" my beliefs about how 
{-lu'} genuinely relates to the passive voice. You speak as if 
there is no connection. I'm standing here pointing at the 
specific connection and you keep talking as if it was random 
whether or not {-lu'} works to translate as passive voice. So, 
show me the exceptions. I'm waiting.
 
> >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".

Nope. The grammar section merely never mentions anything about 
how to handle intransitive verbs. Clearly the assignment of 
prefixes is done by some mysterious process which, when applied 
to transitive verbs appears to follow this reversal between the 
subject and object, but when applied to an intransitive verb, 
follows a simpler process. Okrand was just trying to explain 
what he observed. He was not privvy to the actual causes of 
these effects. He could just see the effects and tried to come 
up with a method by which those effects could be created. His 
described method works for transitives. It doesn't work for 
intransitives.
 
> Technically, there IS a subject - we don't know it, or the sentence doesn't
> require it. But it's there. The only difference I see is that you can't
> translate intransitive verbs with <-lu'> directly into English passive voice
> the same way you can with transitive verbs. You must go the LONG way to get
> the true meaning.

So, how can you see that and consider my understanding of the 
relationship between {-lu'} and transitives to be "debunked"?
 
> Qermaq

charghwI'

Back to archive top level