<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 10/15/2019 12:46 PM, nIqolay Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuPOeCujrsmnm0dk_o40w=vqWXu_Q3VSPSc5HHrOf+ugg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at
11:09 AM Will Martin <<a
href="mailto:willmartin2@mac.com" moz-do-not-send="true">willmartin2@mac.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div>Many times, you will encounter {-meH} verbs that
modify a noun with no subject or object in the phrase.
This is as close to an infinitive (like “to learn”,
which has no subject) as Klingon has. It’s really the
only time that a verb in a well-formed Klingon
sentence has no subject; not even an indefinite
subject. No subject at all. There are instances where
such a verb may have a subject and perhaps even an
object, but if the verb with {-meH} is modifying a
noun, it often has neither subject nor object.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">I'm not sure it's quite right to say
that a {-meH} verb modifying a noun can have no subject.
Apparently it's not common for noun-purpose verbs to use
{-lu'}, but there's still an implied, vague subject: <i>somebody</i>
is learning from a {ghojmeH taj}. The subject is an
unspecified person or thing, so there's just the
third-person null prefix. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think that's what's happening. Sometimes Klingon will
just use the bare verb to refer to the general idea of the verb
without there being anyone doing anything to anyone. It's
infinitive in nature, but there is no subject. It's not a subject
meaning "unspecified person or thing"; it's literally no subject.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuPOeCujrsmnm0dk_o40w=vqWXu_Q3VSPSc5HHrOf+ugg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
(I recall reading a while back somewhere that some
languages, including many Native American ones, don't have
infinitive forms, and instead use other constructions like
an unmarked third person form, and I thought "Aha, that must
be where Klingon gets it from.")</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If your third person happens to be unmarked, that's not terribly
surprising. I don't think something like <b>ghojmeH taj</b> has
the verb in the third person. I don't think it has any person at
all. It just so happens that the unmarked verb with no person is
identical to the verb in the third person.<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>