tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 18:44:43 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)

ghItlh charghwI':

>> teHqu'! This is the best reasoning I've seen to debunk the
>> "<-lu'>-is-Klingon-passive" argument.

Perhaps, as ghunchu'wI' suggested, this is too strong a statement! I
withdraw the hyperbole - I do feel that the argument has merit, but only to
a point.

>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.

charghwI', I'd like to share the underlying reason that I find an equating
of English passive and Klingon <-lu'> on a 'transitive' verb unsettling.
(Transitive in quotes since there's no real canon on the rules of
transitivity/intransitivity of Klingon verbs.)

Passive tense is considered weak in English prose. It is not active. I do
not find <-lu'> to be weak or inactive, aside from the lack of an explicit
subject. Unlike English, where the change from "Someone sees the ship" to
"The ship is seen" is carried out by drastic re-shuffling of word placement
and form, <Duj legh> to <Duj leghlu'> is so much simpler a transition. Would
a Klingon hear these two sentences as differently as we hear the two in
English?

I find the passive tense to be a convenient way to translate Klingon <-lu'>
usage - I do not argue with that. Perhaps it's simply a semantic issue, but
I fail to see a benefit in looking at <-lu'> constructions as passive
voice - in fact, learning to see these verbs as not passive voice frees us
from the need to worry about whether the usage is translatable into passive
or not. I don't honestly know if a Klingon would hear <Ha'DIbaH Surghlu'> as
"The animal is skinned". Perhaps, but I'm not sure.

>>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"?

The relationship is present - I offer no argument. But considering that we
must account for the real difference of intransitive usage, is it
advantageous to go from describing <-lu'> as translatable into passive voice
to describing it as equal to passive voice?

To be honest, charghwI', I'm not really arguing your comparison of the two
situations. I am simply uncomfortable with "blanket-ly" calling the use of
<-lu'> passive voice. MO could have said so much in TKD - he did not. Why, I
wonder? That gives me pause. The name "passive voice" might be apt after
all, but I'm not prepared to adopt it - yet.

Qermaq

Back to archive top level