[tlhIngan Hol] {-'egh} and {-chuq} with {-lu'}

[Will Martin]

My issue is that {-chuqlu’} has to have a plural subject. There doesn’t seem to be any other setting in which {-lu’} implies a plural Indefinite subject. That makes it exceptional.

Does the language grant that exception? You say it obviously does. Is it obvious to most Klingonists, or do you have a unique certainty?

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 11:42 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 9/14/2021 11:17 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> The only part that seems weird to me (besides the already mentioned problem with stative verbs) is the use of {-chuqlu’}. It’s just a gut reaction since I tend to think of indefinite subjects as singular. {not Sovlu’.} “One never knows.” We don’t know who the One is, hence the Indefinite Subject, and likely more than one individual could stand in the place of the Indefinite Subject, but can the Indefinite Subject be plural? Maybe, but I’m not so sure.
> Indefinite subjects are neither singular nor plural. They're indefinite.
> 
> Thinking of indefinite subjects as singular because you translate them as English impersonal one is understandable, but it shows you thinking in English and applying English grammar to Klingon. I can see no reason why the combination of -chuq and -lu' can't work. Whoever is doing the action, they're doing it among themselves.
> 
> 'ejDo'Daq boQchuqlu'.
> On a starship, people help each other.
> 
> That there is no plural version of English impersonal one is a fact of English, not of Klingon.
> 
> 
> 
>> The canon example that eventually arose fit this Singular Indefinite Subject model of the grammar. {potlhbe'chugh yay, qatlh pe''eghlu’?} If winning is not important, why does one keep score?”
> There is no implication of a singular indefinite subject here. You simply used a singular subject when translating it into English.
> 
> 
> 
>> The use of {-chuq} implies two nouns as Indefinite Subject. It takes at least two to do anything to each other. 
> There are no nouns as subject. The subject is indefinite.
> 
> 
> 
>> Maybe this is fine, but it feels weird and I don’t think I’ve run into any canon to support it.
> No, we haven't. It feels weird because we don't do it in English. But what it means in Klingon seems perfectly sensible.
> 
> 
> 
>> Add that the verb prefixes with {-lu’} always use the singular third person object indicated, while basically reversing the subject/object functions of the prefix, heavily suggesting a singular Indefinite Subject. We can say {vIparHa’lu’}, (somebody likes me), and {wIparHa’lu’} (somebody likes us), but we can’t say *DIparHa’lu’* (multiple somebodies like us). It’s specifically disallowed by the grammar.
> The prefixes get "reversed" because there is no subject to agree with, so they agree with only the object. There is no actual reversal happening here. The fact that the prefixes that normally indicate singular, third-person object are used might be pure coincidence.
> 
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210914/955a6754/attachment-0002.htm>