Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {-'egh} and {-chuq} with {-lu'}
charghwI':
The use of {-chuq} implies two nouns as Indefinite Subject. It takes at least two to do anything to each other.
Maybe this is fine, but it feels weird and I don’t think I’ve run into any canon to support it.
Add that the verb prefixes with {-lu’} always use the singular third person object indicated, while basically reversing the subject/object functions of the prefix, heavily suggesting a singular Indefinite Subject. We can say {vIparHa’lu’}, (somebody likes me), and {wIparHa’lu’} (somebody likes us), but we can’t say *DIparHa’lu’* (multiple somebodies like us). It’s specifically disallowed by the grammar.
Maybe this can be useful. In German, the indefinite subject *man* is always grammatically singular, but depending on context, it can be interpreted as *one indefinite person*, *several indefinite persons* or *people in general*, and although it's singular, it can combine with *each other* (*einander*): *Man hilft einander* (*One helps each other -> People help each other). As an aside: Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought of the way prefixes work with *-lu'* when there is an object as a funny way to reflect the typical transformations from active to passive, i.e., the object in active become the subject in passive and the subject in active become the agent in passive, so *One has eaten the cakes* (he / she - them) become *The cakes have been eaten by someone* (they - by him / her). Just a short question: With no object *-lu'* takes always the prefix 0, right?
On 9/16/2021 5:47 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
As an aside: Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought of the way prefixes work with *-lu'* when there is an object as a funny way to reflect the typical transformations from active to passive, i.e., the object in active become the subject in passive and the subject in active become the agent in passive, so*One has eaten the cakes* (he / she - them) become*The cakes have been eaten by someone* (they - by him / her).
You definitely shouldn't think of the Klingon indefinite subject as being related to any kind of passive voice. When you replace the subject with *-lu'*, everything else about the clause remains the same except for the prefix. *jIH mulegh ghaH*/He sees me./ *jIH vIleghlu'*/Someone unspecified sees me. /(*jIH* remains the object.) // It's only in the English translation does anything to do with passive voice potentially appear. We are told in TKD the reason the prefixes change with the indefinite subject: Since the subject is always the same (that is, it is always unstated), the pronomial prefixes... are used in a different way. Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject and third-person object... are used to indicate first- or second-person object.
Just a short question: With no object *-lu'* takes always the prefix 0, right?
Yes. Example: *quSDaq ba'lu''a'*/Is this seat taken?/ (Literally, /Does one sit in chair?/) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The thing to keep in mind here is that while the English passive voice CAN be a translation of the Klingon indefinite subject, the two are not equivalent. SuStel has pointed this out in the past. The English passive voice can have a subject, as in “The song was sung by the singer.” If it were just “The song was sung”, that’s English passive voice and fits Klingon indefinite subject, but when you add “by the singer”, the English passive voice just defined the subject, and you can no longer use {-lu’} in the translation into Klingon. There’s overlap, but not equivalence.
On Sep 16, 2021, at 9:02 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/16/2021 5:47 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:
As an aside: Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought of the way prefixes work with *-lu'* when there is an object as a funny way to reflect the typical transformations from active to passive, i.e., the object in active become the subject in passive and the subject in active become the agent in passive, so *One has eaten the cakes* (he / she - them) become *The cakes have been eaten by someone* (they - by him / her). You definitely shouldn't think of the Klingon indefinite subject as being related to any kind of passive voice. When you replace the subject with -lu', everything else about the clause remains the same except for the prefix.
jIH mulegh ghaH He sees me.
jIH vIleghlu' Someone unspecified sees me. (jIH remains the object.)
It's only in the English translation does anything to do with passive voice potentially appear.
We are told in TKD the reason the prefixes change with the indefinite subject:
Since the subject is always the same (that is, it is always unstated), the pronomial prefixes... are used in a different way. Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person subject and third-person object... are used to indicate first- or second-person object.
Just a short question: With no object *-lu'* takes always the prefix 0, right? Yes. Example: quSDaq ba'lu''a' Is this seat taken? (Literally, Does one sit in chair?)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/16/2021 9:24 AM, Will Martin wrote:
The thing to keep in mind here is that while the English passive voice CAN be a translation of the Klingon indefinite subject, the two are not equivalent. SuStel has pointed this out in the past. The English passive voice can have a subject, as in “The song was sung by the singer.”
If it were just “The song was sung”, that’s English passive voice and fits Klingon indefinite subject, but when you add “by the singer”, the English passive voice just defined the subject, and you can no longer use {-lu’} in the translation into Klingon.
Ooh, I was about to post a rare "I agree with charghwI' 100%" message, but then I read this last line. The job of English passive voice is to make the recipient of the action instead of the performer the subject of the sentence. For simplicity, I will assume the recipient of the action is the /patient/ and the performer of the action is the /agent/. In the passive voice, the patient is the subject, and including the agent is optional. An important reason we use the passive voice is that English requires a subject in every sentence. But what English /doesn't/ require is an /agent/ in every sentence. If you want to obscure or de-emphasize the agent, it can't be the subject. /Mistakes were made./ In Klingon, on the other hand, we /can/ have sentences without subjects, using *-lu'.* *Qaghlu'pu'.* There is no reassignment of agent and patient. But Klingon also doesn't have prepositions, so if you use the indefinite subject, there is no other place to express the agent. If you've got an agent (and there's no *-moH* mucking things up), it /has/ to be the subject. Klingon syntax is more strict than that of English. You might get around this strictness by saying things like *bomwI'mo' bom bomlu'pu'*/Because of the singer, the song was sung./ But this doesn't quite express the same thing as *bom bompu' bomwI'.* *bomwI'mo'* might mean the singer contracted a chorus to sing the song. The cause-noun is not the agent-noun. So I agree with your conclusion: where an English passive-voice sentence expresses both patient and agent, you cannot translate into an equivalent Klingon sentence using indefinite subject. I just object to the statement that "the English passive voice just defined the subject." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thanks for this clarification. Not being a linguist, I was unclear about the difference between the Subject (I’m guessing that’s a syntactic term) and the Agent (I’m guessing that has more to do with semantics), since they are usually one and the same… except in the passive voice. I see a parallel between this exceptional use of Patient as Subject in the English passive voice and the change in meaning of the Klingon prefix (like {vI-}, where it is clearer) with the suffix {-lu’}. In English, the Patient is placed in the sentence in the location that the Subject belongs and the Agent is optional with the helper word “by” and the location of the Object, but in Klingon, the optionally explicit Patient is left grammatically in the Object position or is indicated by the subject implied in the verb prefix, and the Object (the agent) is always syntactically indicated as third person singular, and that Agent is never stated because it is, by definition, Indefinite. It’s refreshing after all these years to have another layer of the onion peeled away. Thank you.
On Sep 16, 2021, at 9:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/16/2021 9:24 AM, Will Martin wrote:
The thing to keep in mind here is that while the English passive voice CAN be a translation of the Klingon indefinite subject, the two are not equivalent. SuStel has pointed this out in the past. The English passive voice can have a subject, as in “The song was sung by the singer.”
If it were just “The song was sung”, that’s English passive voice and fits Klingon indefinite subject, but when you add “by the singer”, the English passive voice just defined the subject, and you can no longer use {-lu’} in the translation into Klingon. Ooh, I was about to post a rare "I agree with charghwI' 100%" message, but then I read this last line.
The job of English passive voice is to make the recipient of the action instead of the performer the subject of the sentence. For simplicity, I will assume the recipient of the action is the patient and the performer of the action is the agent. In the passive voice, the patient is the subject, and including the agent is optional.
An important reason we use the passive voice is that English requires a subject in every sentence. But what English doesn't require is an agent in every sentence. If you want to obscure or de-emphasize the agent, it can't be the subject. Mistakes were made.
In Klingon, on the other hand, we can have sentences without subjects, using -lu'. Qaghlu'pu'. There is no reassignment of agent and patient. But Klingon also doesn't have prepositions, so if you use the indefinite subject, there is no other place to express the agent. If you've got an agent (and there's no -moH mucking things up), it has to be the subject. Klingon syntax is more strict than that of English.
You might get around this strictness by saying things like bomwI'mo' bom bomlu'pu' Because of the singer, the song was sung. But this doesn't quite express the same thing as bom bompu' bomwI'. bomwI'mo' might mean the singer contracted a chorus to sing the song. The cause-noun is not the agent-noun.
So I agree with your conclusion: where an English passive-voice sentence expresses both patient and agent, you cannot translate into an equivalent Klingon sentence using indefinite subject. I just object to the statement that "the English passive voice just defined the subject."
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/16/2021 10:32 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Thanks for this clarification. Not being a linguist, I was unclear about the difference between the Subject (I’m guessing that’s a syntactic term) and the Agent (I’m guessing that has more to do with semantics),
Correct.
since they are /usually/ one and the same… except in the passive voice.
The whole reason we make a distinction between syntax and semantics, and subjects, objects, agents, patients, and so on, is that they don't always appear in the same partnerships. Syntax defines how words fit together /without careful regard for their meaning./ Semantics defines what meaningful roles words play in sentences /without restricting their syntax./
I see a parallel between this exceptional use of Patient as Subject in the English passive voice and the change in meaning of the Klingon prefix (like {vI-}, where it is clearer) with the suffix {-lu’}. In English, the Patient is placed in the sentence in the location that the Subject belongs and the Agent is optional with the helper word “by” and the location of the Object, but in Klingon, the optionally explicit Patient is left grammatically in the Object position or is indicated by the subject implied in the verb prefix, and the Object (the agent) is always syntactically indicated as third person singular, and that Agent is never stated because it is, by definition, Indefinite
When you use an indefinite subject, the verb prefix does NOT imply a subject at all. The agent is not indefinite, and the agent is not the object. The SUBJECT is indefinite. These terms are not interchangeable. TKD says that when using indefinite subject, the verb prefixes are used to agree with only the object, "since the subject is always the same (that is, it is always unstated)." This is the explicit reason the prefixes "flip": not because they're indicating some kind of reversed third-person entity, but because "the subject is always the same," indefinite. Verb prefixes operate according to the rule of *rom:* that is, they must agree with the object and subject of the verb. When using an indefinite subject, there is NO SUBJECT for them to agree with. There's nothing there at all. They CAN'T agree with it. So indefinite subject prefixes only agree with the object, and they do so under what appears to be a fairly arbitrary convention. The indefinite subject prefixes are certainly NOT matching the agent in any way. If *Daqawlu'*/you are remembered,/ and I'm doing the remembering /(you are remembered by me),/ you don't say *choqawlu'.* You say *qaqaw,* because Klingon doesn't have a passive voice, and indefinite subject is not passive voice, and if you've got an agent and a patient in Klingon (and no causer), the agent is the subject and the patient is the object, and that's pretty strict. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
You definitely shouldn't think of the Klingon indefinite subject as being related to any kind of passive voice. When you replace the subject with -lu', everything else about the clause remains the same except for the prefix.
charghwI':
The thing to keep in mind here is that while the English passive voice CAN be a translation of the Klingon indefinite subject, the two are not equivalent. SuStel has pointed this out in the past.
Thank you for your replies! I know, I didn't mean that there is a passive voice in Klingon or that *-lu'* works like passive does. Sorry, I may have expressed myself wrong. I was just wondering if Okrand had something like these active-passive transformations in mind when he decided how the prefixes were going to work. I wasn't trying to give an explanation of how *-lu'* actually works or what it really means :-)
participants (3)
-
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin