tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 27 06:13:58 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: understanding {-lu'}
- From: "Anthony.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: understanding {-lu'}
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:13:43 GMT
- Organization: Materials Science Centre
- Priority: normal
In a message dated 97-11-25 01:34:30 EST, Qov gives us:
> The rebels were killed by the loyalists. (passive)
> The loyalists killed the rebels. (active)
> In Klingon:
> (1) matlhwI'pu'mo' lotlhwI'pu' luHoHlu'
> (2) lotlhwI'pu' HoH matlhwI'pu'
[email protected] wrote:-
> ... {-lu'} suffix vis-a-vis English's passive voice ... I cannot agree that
> a {-mo'} clause is equivalent to an English "by" clause. So, this still does
> not convince me that the {-lu'} suffix is equivalent to passive voice. ...
(1) is "the rebels were killed because of some effect caused by the presence
or deeds of the loyalists" without saying who were the direct killers. Also
Classical Arabic has a passive voice but no way of specifying an agent.