tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 27 01:09:47 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'}
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'}
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:09:43 -0800
At 00:06 97-11-25 -0800, SuStel wrote:
}-----Original Message-----
}From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
}
}>If I could think of a reason to want to use an indirect object for
}>this meaning and not simply say:
}>
}>jagh yaS luHoH tlhIngan negh
}>
}>I would say
}>
}>tlhIngan neghmo' jagh yaS HoHlu'
}>
}>This could also refer to the enemy officer being killed by his own
}>superior because he had Klingon soldiers in his tent, but the English
}>"The enemy officer was killed by the Klingon soldiers" could just as
}>well mean that he was killed while they were standing nearby (as in
}>"... killed by that bush.")
}
}This sounds too much like a declaration that switching the subject to {-mo'}
}and using {-lu'} is always acceptable. I don't think you actually mean
}this.
I certainly don't mean that. Thanks for clarifying.
}Besides, if I read {tlhIngan neghmo' jagh yaS HoHlu'}, the exactly
}meaning would be entirely context-based. If I read {jagh yaS luHoH tlhIngan
}negh}, I know the correct meaning without any context.
True.
}Furthermore, the vagueness of the Klingon is not paralleled by your English
}analogy. "By" is used in the first sense as "near to," and the second one
}as "through the agency or efficacy of." The vagueness of the Klingon is
}simply that you don't know the context which caused the Klingon soldiers to
}perform the action, but the meaning of the sentence itself doesn't change.
Yes, it's a differnt vagueness. I wasn't trying to say it was a perfect
parallel, just to point out that English sentences have ambiguities too, and
we deal.
}>And FWIW I consider {-lu'} to be passive voice. It does what English
}>passive voice does: allows an action to be described without being
}>specific about its subject.
}
}One may also do this in English with the impersonal "one" (see this
}sentence, for example). This is not passive, but the subject is
}non-specific.
}
}Here's what the American College Dictionary, 1966, has to say about
}"passive":
}
}adj. (8.) Gramm. (a.) (in some languages) denoting a voice, or verb
}inflection, in which the subject is represented as being acted upon. [...]
}(b.) denoting a structure similar to this in meaning, as English "he is
}carried."
}
}In Klingon sentences with {-lu'}, the subject is NOT represented as being
}acted upon. {-lu'} means there IS no subject!
In {vIleghlu'} the subject appears to be {jIH}, but the {-lu'} ending
reverses it to being the object. Granted the word order does not change if
the subject is given as a noun or pronoun, so it's not fully the same.
}I don't see any reason to label Klingon verbs with {-lu'} as "passive." The
}*translation* into English may be passive, but that's totally irrelevant.
}We're dealing with the grammar of Klingon, not the mechanics of translation.
}
}At the very least, "passive" is the wrong word to describe {-lu'}
}formations. "Passive" implies inactivity or acquiescence, but all the
}Klingon suffix is doing is telling you that there's no specific subject to
}worry about. That's not weak, that's just a fact.
As I've said, I don't take all the connotations of the English word
"passive" into the grammatical term.
}> Klingon passive voice happens to have an
}>ability English passive voice doesn't: it can describe an action that
}>has no object.
}> I believe the term "passive voice" isn't in TKD
}>because Marc Okrand was making an effort to avoid grammar
}>terminology.
}
}Marc Okrand DOES use the phrase "passive voice," on page 39, where he says
}"Verbs with {-lu'} are often translated into the English passive voice."
That does indicate that Marc Okrand doesn't consider {-lu'} to be passive
voice.
I think it's a matter of voobles and kronstints, but I won't use the term
'passive voice' to describe {-lu'} without qualification such as 'acts like.'
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian