tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 13 21:38:33 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: choH yabwIj



On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:50:45 -0700 (PDT)  David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin wrote:
> > This is the same kind of perspective shift I had to go through
> > when I first saw {-lu'} used with an intransitive verb.
> 
> I can see how transitive plus {-moH} can cause a perspective shift, but I've 
> always been confused as to why people have trouble with {-lu'} on intransitive 
> verbs.
> 
> Qatlhlu'
> Something unspecified is difficult.
> 
> Qonglu'
> Someone unspecified sleeps.
> 
> My only idea is that thinking of {-lu'} equalling English passive voice can 
> cause problems, in which case you mean that Klingon verbs which *translate* 
> into English intransitive verbs, and which have {-lu'} on them, don't you?

I feel like that for the sake of argument, you've distorted my 
perspective into one that is easier to discount. The description 
of {-lu'} in the grammar section gave no mention of its use 
without an object. All of the explanations included the prefix 
using third person singular object with the roles flipped for 
subject and object. Then, in the phrase section, we get 
{quSvamDaq ba'lu''a'?}. No object. No explanation for how this 
is supposed to work.

It also happens that when there is an object of the action of 
the verb, the passive voice works nicely in translation, but 
when there is no object, there is no way to translate it into 
the passive voice. This is not the only reason I had a problem 
with {-lu} on an intransitive verb. I had the problem because it 
doesn't translate into passive AND it doesn't follow any of the 
rules described in the grammar section.

If I missed something in the grammar section, please point it 
out to me. qaqaD.

Meanwhile, I did figure out how it works from looking at the 
example given, but I had to make up new rules to explain how it 
worked. These rules do not exist in the grammar section of TKD.

Similarly, using {-moH} on transitive verbs apparently happens, 
but there are no rules stated in TKD to explain it. And I'm not 
sure, but I think that the intransitive {-lu'} has only one 
canon example of its use, yet you are far more comfortable 
accepting THAT unstated rule than you are with the transitive 
{-moH}. You like one and dislike the other and there isn't a lot 
of rationality to it. It is just a personal preference, but you 
take your personal preferences quite seriously.

qay'be. I take mine quite seriously, too. chaq mapaw'nIS neH. 
vaj mawuqlaH.
 
> > Fortunately, most instances of {-moH} will be with intransitive
> > verbs.
> 
> Thank Kahless!

qay'be'.
 
> SuStel
> Stardate 97781.8
> 

charghwI'





Back to archive top level