[Tlhingan-hol] ghawran DIS chu' nabmey

[SuStel]

On 12/29/2015 10:49 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
> ok, so to summarize all of these and make things clear :
>
> klingon doesn't have a passive voice, however one can use {-lu'}
> keeping in mind that it means
> <someone/something does something to..>. However when someone will be
> reading the {-lu'}
> sentence, he will be right if he translates it in his mind as passive voice.
> So, although klingon doesn't have a passive voice, I can right in
> passive voice !?!?!!?!?
> Also, klingon doesn't have a passive voice, however these canon
> examples utilize a passive voice
> translation.
> Finally although klingon doesn't have passive voice okrand uses it in
> his translations.

You're confusing translation with meaning. Passive voice is just a way 
of phrasing something that makes the patient of the action the subject 
and puts the agent of the action, if there is one, into a preposition. 
Klingon simply doesn't have such a phrasing.

Not every instance of {-lu'} will be best translated with English 
passive voice. Consider:

    naDev tlhIngan Hol jatlhlu'
    Klingon is spoken here (sounds good in passive voice)

    one speaks Klingon here (sounds stilted, but it's still acceptable
    in active voice)

    naDev Qonglu'
    one sleeps here (a passive voice translation would be difficult)

Sometimes a translation can be rather different than the original:

    pa'vo' pagh leghlu'
    the room has no view (CK)

Literally, this is "indefinite subject sees nothing from the room." It 
does not use a passive voice translation, although one is easily 
concocted: "nothing is seen from the room."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name