tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 24 00:50:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- From: "Anthony.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'} (was Re: peDtaH 'ej jIQuch)
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:49:50 GMT
- Organization: Materials Science Centre
- Priority: normal
ghItlhpu' "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
> I translate <quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'> as "Does someone sit in this chair?" It is
> most definitely NOT "In this chair, is someone sat?"
It is, if you follow the colloquial English usage "is sat" for "has sat",
"is sitting", but otherwise:-
In "In this chair, is someone sat?", "someone" is the subject of passive "be
sat", and thus object of active "sit" used wrongly as a transitive:
**{quSvamDaq vay' ba'lu''a'}
> The English passive is only useful sometimes - not always - in translating
> <-lu'>. I routinely translate constructions in their "Someone or
> something..." forms first, THEN rephrase into passive English if it is more
> clear. ... teHqu'! This is the best reasoning I've seen to debunk the
> "<-lu'>-is-Klingon-passive" argument.
It only debunks it for intransitive verbs - in English. Latin could have {In
hoc sedile sedetur-ne?} with a passive.