tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 10 21:31:02 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: to' nech
At 19:54 2002-04-10 -0500, Alan Anderson wrote:
>ja' "Sean M. Burke" <[email protected]>:
> >I think the structure I'm aiming for here with those verbs and {-lu'} is
> >like on TKD p39, {Soplu'} "someone/something eats it" [="it is/gets
> >eaten"], where it's basically a passivizer. So {nejlu'pu'} => "It was
> >sought for", {Samlu'pu'} => "It was found".
>
>"passivizer"?
>
>There's no such concept in Klingon grammar. The verb suffix {-lu'} means
>"indefinite subject" and does NOT indicate "passive voice". Klingon does
>not have active and passive voices.
So what do you make of TKD p39: "Thus, {vI-}, which normally means "I do
something to him/her", when in a verb with {lu'}, means "someone/something
does something to me."
If it were /simply/ "indefinite subject", {vIlegh} would mean "I, whoever
the hell I am, see [something]". But it instead means "I get seen."
What do mean by "[language] has [or doesn't have] active and passive
voices"? Maybe we don't mean different things.
--
Sean M. Burke http://www.spinn.net/~sburke/