[tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI'

Felix Malmenbeck felixm at kth.se
Tue May 26 13:35:52 PDT 2020


> But are we talking about an inconsequential subject?


The main reason I could see would be to subvert expectation or convention; you are taking something that is explicitly unmentioned, and mentioning it.


This could be to make the point that something left unmentioned shouldn't be, or to express curiosity about something that is unknown, or to express an extreme lack of interest in the identity of the subject, or any number of other reasons.


> Like Okrand, I can't think of any non-poetic reason why

> the combination of -lu' and -wI' would be of any use.


Oh, I fully agree; all of these suggestions are meant to be regarded as possible poetic usages.


... and the key word there really is "possible". The fact that it goes against expectations suggests that it would probably be highly irregular in its usage.

It's the sort of thing you'd submit to your editor with an annotation that it should be left as is.


> Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che' gheSwI'.
> If one assumes the duties of chancellor, the duty-assumer

> rules the empire. I see no reason how gheSlu'wI' indefinite

> duty-assumer would improve this.


In this case, the reason could perhaps be to trivialize the person assuming office, or to highlight their indeterminate nature. Perhaps you consider the role of chancellor to be so set in routine that it doesn't matter who is next in line for the position. Alternatively, you might wish to highlight the generality of your statements by actively de-specifying the identity of the gheSlu'wI'.


//loghaD



________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 21:51
To: tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI'

On 5/26/2020 3:39 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:

I could perhaps imagine a case where you wish to imply that the subject is inconsequential, or perhaps perceived as inconsequential by themselves or others.

But are we talking about an inconsequential subject? -lu' expresses an indefinite subject, not an inconsequential one. It might be that the subject isn't expressed definitely because it is inconsequential, but it might also be because the subject is just unknown or unclear, or that the expression of the subject is inconsequential, even if the subject itself isn't inconsequential.

Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che'lu'.
If one assumes the duties of chancellor, one rules the Empire.


For example, you could start the poem off talking about why {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam}, and then finish off by talking about the {Heghlu'wI'}. This could be done in support of the maxim (by highlighting the indeterminate identity of the {Heghlu'wI'}) or in order to satirize it (by implying that the {Heghlu'wI'} is commonly overlooked).

Except for deliberately paralleling the syntax of the proverb (which once might try to do in poetry), I can't see any reason why you wouldn't just refer to the HeghwI' one who dies. Like Okrand, I can't think of any non-poetic reason why the combination of -lu' and -wI' would be of any use.

Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che' gheSwI'.
If one assumes the duties of chancellor, the duty-assumer rules the empire. I see no reason how gheSlu'wI' indefinite duty-assumer would improve this.

--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200526/38936051/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list