[tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI'

[SuStel]

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/20200526/473634cb/attachment-0002.htm>