[tlhIngan Hol] using {-lu'} in conjunction with {-ghach}

[Hugh Son puqloD]

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 09:07, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh at qeylis.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 08:59, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> This whole matter *feels* to me like, combining {-lu'} with {-wI'}, thus writing something like {leghlu'wI'}, which I don't *feel* as something actually making sense.
> 
> I’ve heard arguments that something like {leghlu'wI'} *could* mean something like “one that is seen” (i.e., the {-lu'} “flips” {-wI'} so that the formed noun is the object of the verb rather than the subject, much in the way that {-lu'} “flips” prefixes), and I can sort of see the train of thought that leads there, but I am unconvinced that it actually works that way and I am nearly certain it’s not supported by canon.

That said, *if*, {-lu'} + {-wI'} works that way, which is a BIG if, since I don’t think it does and I expect I’m not alone, it *could* work similarly for {-lu'} + {-ghach}, making *{vanglu'ghach} an “action” in the sense of some action that is carried out rather than “action” in the sense of the act of acting. However, we have no evidence to support this that I know of, and in the absence of any such evidence I don’t think it can be meaningfully interpreted as anything.

If the {-lu'} wasn’t added for the purpose of getting around “bare {-ghach}” being highly marked, then I suspect it was meant to disambiguate the different possible meanings of the English noun “action”. Wherever you encountered that word should probably have been translated to avoid using it, though.