naQjej rurmo' wot, ghantoH <chuH> vIlo'. vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej ?chuHlu'wI' 'e' SIbI' vItlhoj.
vay'e' chuHlu'bogh 'oSbej *chuHlu'wI' SIbI' 'e' vItlhoj
or
SIbI' vay''e' chuHlu'bogh 'oHSbej *chuHlu'wI' 'e' vItlhoj
<'e'> tlha'laH chuvmey 'e' vIQub. 'a jIQochbe', <'e'> nung chuvmey vImaS je.
'e' lutlha'laHbe' chuv. chaq TKD 6.7 mojaq -'e'
je DaqelHa'.
In English passive voice, this is true. -lu' is not English passive voice. In Klingon, when -lu' is added, the object remains the object.
This is the language used to decribe what goes on in Klingon. My point is the construction i
Your sentence seems to have been cut off.
The language used to describe what goes on in Klingon is
"someone/something does something to me" and "someone/something
does something to them," and so on. Only after giving examples in
most combinations does TKD say "Verbs with -lu' are often
translated into the English passive voice." It then gives the SAME
examples translated into passive voice. The point is clearly not
that what's happening in Klingon is grammatically equivalent to
English passive voice; it simply means that passive voice is often
a more colloquial translation. It sounds stilted to say
"someone/something remembers you"; it sounds natural to say "you
are remembered."
So'bogh DoS DIp chu' jal rom chut je,
The rule of accord envisions a new, hidden target noun?
My language here is awkward. An example is called for. When {mulegh ghaH} is changed to {vIleghlu'}. The rule of accord requires the prefix {vI-}, so although semantically there is a null agent and first-person singular patient, grammatically the rule of accord treats this situation as if there were a first-person singular subject and third-person singular object, although that object is merely a grammatical fiction. This is clearly a special situation, and I have to wonder whether OVS accurately reflects how Klingon linguists would interpret it.
mulegh ghaH is not changed to vIleghlu'. You
construct vIleghlu' directly. There is no transformation
from one to another. When I am thinking in Klingon and I intend to
use an indefinite subject, my mind goes straight to vI-
being the proper prefix.
The vI- prefix does not, according to the description in TKD, treat vIleghlu' as if it had a first-person singular subject and a third-person singular object. TKD explicitly says the prefixes are used to mean something else. With -lu', vI- MEANS first-person object. There's no grammatical fiction going on; the prefixes are simply reassigned for -lu'.
Now, is it possible that there is some "grammatical fiction"
reason WHY the prefixes are reassigned? Maybe, but that's pure
conjecture and there's no evidence for it anywhere.
'a potlhbe', mu'tlheghDaq DI'rujDaq ghap DoS DIpqoqvam chu' tu'be'lu'mo'. wotvaD DoS DIp 'oHtaH nungbogh DIp'e'. moHaqvaD chuHwI' DIp mojlaw' nungbogh DIp. ghu'vam vIqelmeH DIvI' Hol qechmey /subject/ /object/ je, jImISqu'choH. 'ach vuDlIj QIjmeH /subject/ /object/ je wuv SuStel. rarchu'be' tlhIngan Hol, qechmeyvam je 'e' vIQub.
ghu'vam le'mo', SuStel vuD vIHon. latlh meq vIghaj. 'oSlaHbe' wot'e' tlhejbogh <-lu'> <-wI'> je, 'eb lonlu'pu' 'ej pagh chavlu'.
Hoch 'eb jon Hol 'e' SaHbe' Hol.
'a chaq SaH tlhInganpu'. 'eb tu'DI', lulo' 'e' bot nuq? lubotlaHbe'ba' tera'ngan Holtej. 'a 'eb lulo' luneHbe' tlhIngan, SIghlaHbe' je tera'ngan Holtej.
Arguing over whether a Klingon would or would not care about a
particular grammatical feature is not a useful line of reasoning,
in my view.
DaH jIyevnIS 'a jItaHqa'. SuStel, choQaHqangmo' choquvmoH. qaQeHmoHmo' jIQoS. jItlhIj 'e' DalajlaH'a'?
HIja', 'ej DaH SoHvaD jItlhIj je. Doj QIjmeH QInlIj. jIQoch 'ach
DaH batlh choghoHpu'.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name