tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 08:10:52 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-lu'} on intransitive verbs [WAS Re: The topic marker -'e']
On Nov 27, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Christopher Doty wrote:
> Thanks, these are quite interesting! So, as I said before, -lu'
> functions as a passive in Klingon, but the examples below make it
> clear that it ALSO has other functions, beyond just a passive.
When you say "also" and "beyond", do you mean 1) it's always a
passive and sometimes has another function at the same time, or 2)
it's sometimes a passive and sometimes has another function instead?
I hesitate to respond before I know just what I'm responding to.
> This first set looks closest to a sort of fourth person, especially
> the first one.
If by "fourth person" you mean an indefinite or nonspecific or even
completely absent subject...then yes, that's exactly what {-lu'}
means. It *always* means that. Whether or not an appropriate
English translation uses passive voice isn't important. (I think the
phrase "zeroth person" would fit the idea better.)
> Specific comments below...
I can't be sure what you're really thinking, but it looks like your
specific comments are all based on the English phrasing. Try not to
put too much importance on the translation; in many of these cases,
the English came first and the Klingon was crafted to carry a similar
meaning. For instance:
> Transitive example:
>
>> Suvlu'taHvIS yapbe' HoS neH.
>> Brute strength is not the most important asset in a fight.
>> TKW, p. 21
I can see no way to call {Suvlu'taHvIS} transitive.
-- ghunchu'wI'