[tlhIngan Hol] when -laH cripples the -lu'

[mayqel qunen'oS]

SuStel:
> Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs
> into an irreconcilable *-lu'/laH* clash.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me.

The problem (or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need
to say "someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, without
breaking the -lu'/-laH rule.

The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu'taHvIS, 'ej
Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and suddenly I need to say "but he is
unable to train", I would then need to switch off the -lu', to some other
solution.

Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHbe' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv},
{qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, etc.

But doing so, I would have to switch from talking about someone
"unspecified", to someone "specified".

Now, don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone"
described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by the vay'. In greek we
don't have something similar, so I can't *feel* the difference between the
two.

But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussion on the
-lu', that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu', then it
would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (or some other
solution) interchangeably.

~ changan qIj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190318/29dc6d33/attachment-0015.htm>