tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 24 00:48:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 03:48:38 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-11-24 01:34:21 EST, ghunchu'wI' writes:
<< 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. >>
I still maintain that {-lu'} is not the English-type "passive voice." The
Klingon way of thinking is that it is an indication of an indefinite subject.
The passive voice construction usually still indicates who the subject is by
adding ".... by the subject." For example, "The enemy officer was killed by
the Klingon soldiers." The tlhIngan Hol {-lu'} suffix can only go so far as
to express "The enemy officer was killed." We do not have a module for "...
by the Klingon soldiers."
peHruS