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

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Tue Mar 19 02:36:23 PDT 2019

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:18, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> De'vID:
> > Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then subsequently
> > use {ghaH} to refer back to that person?
> I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
> I don't have a problem with using vay' and then ghaH, as you suggested. It
> is what I would naturally do, in order to avoid hitting the -lu'/-laH
> problem.

There's your problem, though. You'd only do this to "avoid hitting" the
{-lu'}/{-laH} "problem". But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with,
*regardless* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not?
Imagine if Klingon didn't lump {-lu'} and {-laH} into the same suffix class
and you could use them together. What would change?

> The point of this thread, was to share my disappointment; on one hand we
> have a suffix, which we could use in order to refer to someone indefinite,
> but on the other hand, the -lu'/-laH rule, undermines our ability to use
> -lu' to its fullest, thus limiting its use to expressing passive voice.

I don't think it does, though. You've claimed repeatedly this is a problem,
but you've not really demonstrated this by writing a passage in Klingon
which runs into this problem. So let's pretend that {-lu'laH} is
permissible. What is the passage you would've written?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190319/27d10dbc/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list