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

[SuStel]

On 1/16/2020 10:07 AM, Hugh Son puqloD 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.

It isn't.

And this analysis relies on the idea that *-lu'* "flips" the subject of 
the verb to the object, when it does no such thing. *-lu'* simply means 
the subject is indefinite instead of definite. The object remains the 
same. The prefix "flipping" is simply an acknowledgement that, since 
there is no subject, the first and only argument to the verb to consider 
is the object.

*jIH mulegh HoD*/The captain sees me/ is a sentence with a definite subject.

*jIH vIleghlu'*/Someone indefinite sees me/ describes the same situation 
with an indefinite subject. There is no "flipping."
//

English passive voice "flips" the object to the subject, but this is 
completely different from Klingon *-lu'.* The grammar of a translation 
does not govern the grammar of the original.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200116/23fc1410/attachment-0015.htm>