tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 15:35:19 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)



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'




Back to archive top level