tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 15:35:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:35:13 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
jIja'pu':
>The transitive/intransitive distinction is important only for the
>English translation...in Klingon, whether or not there's
>an object doesn't affect the ability to have an indefinite subject.
ja' Qermaq:
>teHqu'! This is the best reasoning I've seen to debunk the
>"<-lu'>-is-Klingon-passive" argument.
Those are much, much stronger words than I'm willing to use!
{-lu'} is used in Klingon for the same meaning that is conveyed by passive
voice in English. I do see them as different means to the same end, but
when {-lu'} is used on a verb with an object, the phrase can *always* be
translated with English passive voice. The way I think of {-lu'}, with
its definition of "indefinite subject", a more literal English phrasing
would be "one does such-and-such." But that's *exactly* the same meaning
as "such-and-such is done."
Saying that {-lu'} doesn't translate as passive voice is wrong. It isn't
*defined* as passive voice, but stating that it doesn't *mean* the same as
passive voice is being unnecessarily picky, perhaps to the point of losing
sight of the underlying concept in some cases.
-- ghunchu'wI'