tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 18 18:40:33 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "indefinite subject" and "passive voice"
- From: "Rohan Fenwick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "indefinite subject" and "passive voice"
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:40:30 +0000
>English has "active" forms where the subject acts, and "passive" forms
>where the subject receives an action. "Someone hit the table" vs "The
>table was hit by someone." Klingon has no such distinction in voice; both
>come out with the table receiving the action as the object of the sentence.
I heard someone say that if the object of a sentence habitually comes first
in a language, then all the verbs must be passive, because logically, the
subject should come first. The example which was cited was the sentence
puq legh yaS
which was translated as "The child is-seen-by the soldier". Now, I know that
this is wrong and it smacks of circular reasoning (viz. objects can't come
first in a sentence, but if one does, then the verb must be passive, because
we all know that objects can't come first in a sentence - obvious rubbish),
but can anyone - perhaps someone with a knowledge of theoretical linguistics
- explain why it is so? Why do we read <<legh>> as "sees" instead of
Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.