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

[SuStel]

On 3/18/2019 2:09 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> 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.

I'd just use *vay'* with the *-laH *and forget about it.

Actually I'd probably use *vay'* for the whole thing, provided I didn't 
need to repeat it. *vumtaHvIS vay' 'ej Doy'qu'taHvIS, qeqnISchugh 'ach 
qaqlaHbe'chugh...*

Again, I'd need to see this in its larger context. You'll generally have 
to reword something that will end up with a *-laH* and *-lu'* together 
anyway.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190318/1573ec43/attachment-0015.htm>