Klingon doesn't have a passive voice.. instead, it has the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, which means "someone/something unspecified does/is". Now.. True, one *could* translate the sentence {vIghro' leghlu'} as "the cat is seen", but the exact/literal translation of this sentence, is "someone/something unspecified sees the cat". Back in the day, when I was starting out, being more of a beginner than I'm now, I remember always translating in my mind the {-lu'} as being passive voice. Until one day, I started translating it as "someone/something unspecified does/is", an event which changed many things, with regard to when and how I would be using it, but that would be the subject of another mail.. So, what does all this has to do with aspect ? Klingon, not only lacks a passive voice, but it lacks tenses too. Saying {yotwI' Suv 'avwI'} can mean any of the following: the guard fights the intruder the guard fought the intruder the guard will fight the intruder All these alternate translations are valid, and the thing which will define which of them is meant by the author, depends either on context, or on the presence of time stamps. But lets say, I write: {wa'Hu', yotwI' Suv 'avwI'} What does it mean ? Some time ago, when I'd see it, without hesitation, I'd translate it as "yesterday, the guard fought the intruder". But recently I realized, that as in the case of the {-lu'} the literal translation isn't passive voice, here too, the literal translation is different.. It's not "yesterday, the guard fought the intruder"; it's rather "yesterday, the guard fights the intruder". Now, perhaps someone may wonder: "is this distinction important, and if yes then why ?". I think, that It's *very* important, because once someone begins to think in the literal meaning of what the grammar of the sentence in question actually says, then he'll be better able to use aspect properly, depending on what he actually wants to say. Lets see an example: {wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvmo' 'avwI', QeHchoH HoD} = Yesterday, because the guard fights the intruder, the captain becomes angry. (the two events happen simultaneously) {wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvpu'mo' 'avwI', QeHchoHpu' HoD} = Yesterday, because the guard has fought the intruder, the captain has become angry. (the event of the guard fighting the intruder has been completed, the captain became angry sometime either during the fight or after it had been completed, and the event of the becoming of the captain has been also completed) {wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvpu'mo' 'avwI', QeHchoH HoD} = Yesterday, because the guard has fought the intruder, the captain becomes angry. (the event of the guard fighting the intruder has been completed, and then the captain becomes angry because of that event) {wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvmo' 'avwI', QeHchoHpu' HoD} = Yesterday, because the guard fights the intruder, the captain has become angry. (the guard fights the intruder, without their fight having being completed, but the event of the becoming angry of the captain is completed) .. As is seen from these examples, there are variations between the meaning of each sentence, which variations can only be perceived if someone understands *exactly* what his eyes are actually reading, without assigning the meaning of past tense to a verb, just because that verb is being preceded by a {wa'Hu'}. Or the meaning of future tense, just because the verb is being preceded by a {wa'leS}. ~ mayqel qunen'oS