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

[SuStel]

On 3/18/2019 3:06 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> It might be good to rethink the entire project. A long string of 
> {-lu’} or {vay’} is odd because on one hand, you want the subject to 
> be unspecified, but on the other hand, you want to be talking about 
> the same unspecified entity repeatedly. If it were truly unspecified, 
> then there’s no guarantee that the second statement is about the same 
> entity as the first one.

Klingon seems to be willing to work with a string of *-lu'* verbs, as 
exhibited in this proverb: *noq QapmeH wo' Qaw'lu'chugh yay chavbe'lu' 
'ej wo' choqmeH may' DoHlu'chugh lujbe'lu'*/Destroying an empire to win 
a war is no victory, and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat. 
/(TKW)


> It just doesn’t come across as direct, blunt speech. I’m suspecting it 
> would test a listener’s patience.

Klingon should be direct, but I don't think it has to be blunt. To 
extend the metaphor, they might like sharp, cutting remarks. In any 
case, I'm not sure why an indefinite subject would necessarily sound 
indirect to a Klingon's ear.

I also don't think it would test a listener's patience. As long as the 
listener knows you're not talking about a specific subject, they can 
just hear *-lu'* and think "subject not important here." Constant 
passive voice or stilted, impersonal /one/ in English is tiresome, but 
that's because we have more common and active ways to say these things. 
Klingon indefinite subject is not passive.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190318/caef62d6/attachment-0015.htm>