tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 19:57:47 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 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.

HIvqa' veqlargh -- the prefix {lu-} indeed is addressed.  However, a
specific mention of the null prefix *is* absent.

ja' charghwI':
>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.

I don't see any irregularity.  "Indefinite subject" doesn't make a
distinction between transitive and intransitive.

>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.

Actually, the rules governing the choice of verb prefix when using {-lu'}
aren't specifically stated anywhere in TKD.  We are just given examples
of what the appropriate prefixes are for certain situations.  We're told
how to indicate first- or second-person object, and how to indicate a
third-person plural object.  Then we're given an few examples, including
two that show how a third-person singular object works.  It's not until
the "useful phrases" appendix that an example of *no* object appears, but
that example doesn't contradict anything else given in TKD.

>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.

It's not quite that clearcut.  Don't forget that Okrand himself translated
the {ba'lu'} example with passive voice.  Some Klingon intransitive verbs
come out wordy enough in English to permit passive voice all by themselves.
{wuQlu'} "a headache is had" isn't very nice, but {'eplu'} "soup is eaten"
comes out okay, and {peghlu'} "a secret is kept" seems reasonable.

jIja'qa':
>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.

I still think this is an important idea.  Whether or not English passive
voice works should be irrelevant to the meaning of {-lu'} in Klingon.

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

I think I addressed this overzealous comment in an earlier note...

ja'qa' charghwI':
>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.

As I pointed out earlier, I think the boundary is a little fuzzier than
you seem to be insisting.  I also think the issue of whether passive voice
works should have no bearing on the rules for using and understanding {-lu'}.

>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.

Here's where I think you're stretching things.  {-lu'} can express the
same things as English passive voice, but intransitive verbs thrown in
as a bonus makes it unlike passive voice.  However, the definition TKD
gives, "indefinite subject", matches *exactly* the impersonal "one" in
English.  {-lu'} is an appropriate translation for passive voice, but
that doesn't mean they are the same thing.  For example, there's a long
tradition of recasting ideas in order to fit Klingon grammar when there
isn't a direct match with English phrasing.  This could easily be one
of those cases:  "the tribble is skinned" becomes "one skins the tribble"
on its way to being translated as {yIH Surghlu'}.

[tangential mention of pronouns ignored]

>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.

Since {-lu'} doesn't always work for passive voice, I'd rather infer that
it is *not* "really passive voice" in Klingon.  As I've stated in another
debate, I like a simpler explanation that lacks irregularities.  In this
case, the explanation that works for both transitive *and* intransitive
verbs is the definition given in TKD: "indefinite subject".

>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.

Done that already. :-)  But I don't intend my "soup is eaten" example
to say anything about intransitivity and passive voice in general; it
is a specific English translation that permits it to work.

>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.

I want to *avoid* exceptions and explain the grammar with as few rules as
are necessary.  In the case of {-lu'}, bringing in a distinction between
transitive and intransitive meanings merely complicates things.


-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level