<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2019 12:06 PM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5498680a-2926-24d4-737a-996407587a6f@gmx.de">Am
05.07.2019 um 21:24 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I can't see any problem with using *-lu'*
with the third-person
<br>
pronouns. First- and second-person pronoun "to be" sentences use
the
<br>
pronoun itself as the subject; third-person "to be" sentences
can take
<br>
third-person nouns as their subjects. *verengan ghaHlu'chugh,
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I disagree with that, based on what you have tought me: pronouns
are not
<br>
verbs. (even though they are treated as such in some cases)
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Pronouns are not verbs. Pronouns can be linked to nouns, and
pronouns can link nouns. When they are performing this linking
function they may use verb suffixes to describe the nature of the
link: is it continuous, is it a condition, is it in question, etc.
TKD calls pronouns linked to nouns the subject of the sentence,
while when pronouns link nouns together TKD calls the topic noun
the subject.</p>
<p>With all that, there's little difficulty in interpreting <b>-lu'</b>
on a pronoun: the topic noun has been made indefinite. I don't
know whether this combination is <i>allowed,</i> but it's not
difficult to understand.</p>
<p><b>DujDaq ghaHtaH HoD'e'</b><i> The captain is on the ship.<br>
</i><b>DujDaq ghaHlu'</b><i> Someone indefinite is on the ship.</i><br>
</p>
<p><b>HoD ghaH loDvetlh'e'</b><i> That man is the captain.<br>
</i><b>HoD ghaHlu'</b><i> Someone indefinite is the captain.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5498680a-2926-24d4-737a-996407587a6f@gmx.de">
We know that -lu' reverse the object-subject,</blockquote>
<p>FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, NO IT DOESN'T!
Everyone needs to unlearn this falsehood immediately.</p>
<p><b>-lu'</b> makes the subject indefinite. Nothing whatsoever
happens to the object. You're confusing prefix-agreement with
actual subject and object. When using <b>-lu',</b> the prefixes
are used in a different way, but subject (or lack thereof) and
object remain as they were.</p>
<p><b>HoD legh la'</b><i> The commander sees the captain.<br>
</i><b>HoD leghlu'</b><i> Someone indefinite sees the captain.</i></p>
<p><b>jIH cholegh SoH</b><i> You see me.<br>
</i><b>jIH vIleghlu'</b><i> Someone indefinite sees me.</i></p>
<p>The object always remains the object. The only thing that changes
is the prefix used.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5498680a-2926-24d4-737a-996407587a6f@gmx.de"> so if you
accept -lu' at a
<br>
pronoun, you treat it like a transitive verb. Besides, -lu'
reverse the
<br>
meaning of the prefix, but pronouns do not have any prefix in
<br>
to-be-sentences.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>To-be sentences also don't have objects. Adding a <b>-lu'</b>
changes absolutely nothing about the transitivity of a verb.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5498680a-2926-24d4-737a-996407587a6f@gmx.de">
In the phrase, {verengan ghaH}, the subject is {ghaH}. Adding -lu'
does
<br>
not take that away. {ghaHlu'} sounds to me like {one is himmed} or
such
<br>
nonsense. Theoretically expaning this to a plural form, what
prefix
<br>
should you take in {tlhIngan maHlu'}? {tlhIngan DImaHlu'}? We are
being
<br>
Klingoned?
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I specifically said adding <b>-lu'</b> makes sense for
third-person "to be" sentences where one noun is linked to
another. You can't turn <b>verengan ghaH</b> into a sentence with
an indefinite subject. But you could turn <b>verengan ghaH
qurwI''e'</b><i> The greedy one is a Ferengi</i> into an
indefinite-subject sentence: <b>verengan ghaHlu'</b><i> Someone
indefinite is a Ferengi.</i></p>
<p>You have fallen into the common trap of thinking that Klingon <b>-lu'</b>
maps directly into English passive voice. It doesn't. English
passive voice is sometimes a good way to translate <b>-lu',</b>
but the grammar is dissimilar.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5498680a-2926-24d4-737a-996407587a6f@gmx.de">
There is no rule forbidding it, but also non allowing it. You your
guess
<br>
still is just a guess and we cannot know for sure it is correct or
makes
<br>
sense. Until Maltz confirms.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>You bet. In which part of this conversation did I said you could
definitely put a <b>-lu'</b> on a pronoun? I said I could see no
problem with it. I didn't endorse it. I recommend nobody use it
without further evidence. But if somebody does use it, I can see
no evidence-based argument against it.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>