<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Great discussion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If I were to guess at what {vanglu’ghach} could mean, based on the way {-ghach} works with other suffixes and on what you are rightly pointing out about what {-lu’} does to a verb, I’d probably come up with “the anonymity of action”, which is not a particularly meaningful noun, from my perspective. I suggest it less because I think that such an interpretation of {vanglu’gach} is useful than I do to illustrate why {vanglu’ghach} is almost certainly not a useful addition to Klingon vocabulary.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe one could stretch one’s imagination to illustrate an example where the inability to identify one who does a thing is the focus of meaning one needs a noun for, but it would be a long stretch, and we’ve gone decades without needing that word. We can probably go decades more before such a need arises.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Similarly, I’d interpret {leghlu’wI’} as one who anonymously sees. In other words, an unidentifiable seer, like {ja’lu’wI’} might be the narrator of a story, as viewed from the reality of the story itself. “Where is that voice coming from?”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Or maybe Klingon has the perfect word to describe the source of those voices in my head...</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">See how weird this gets?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Nominalizing a verb with {-lu’}? I agree that it’s probably a bad idea. </div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:26 AM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/16/2020 10:07 AM, Hugh Son puqloD
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:60AA5A67-B21B-46FE-9479-15713BE8811C@qeylIS.net" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" style="" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Jan 16, 2020, at 08:59, mayqel qunen'oS <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><mihkoun@gmail.com></a> wrote:
This whole matter <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>feels<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> to me like, combining {-lu'} with {-wI'}, thus writing something like {leghlu'wI'}, which I don't <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>feel<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> as something actually making sense.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I’ve heard arguments that something like {leghlu'wI'} <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>could<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> mean something like “one that is seen” (i.e., the {-lu'} “flips” {-wI'} so that the formed noun is the object of the verb rather than the subject, much in the way that {-lu'} “flips” prefixes), and I can sort of see the train of thought that leads there, but I am unconvinced that it actually works that way and I am nearly certain it’s not supported by canon.</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">It isn't.</p><p class="">And this analysis relies on the idea that <b class="">-lu'</b> "flips"
the subject of the verb to the object, when it does no such thing.
<b class="">-lu'</b> simply means the subject is indefinite instead of
definite. The object remains the same. The prefix "flipping" is
simply an acknowledgement that, since there is no subject, the
first and only argument to the verb to consider is the object.</p><p class=""><b class="">jIH mulegh HoD</b><i class=""> The captain sees me</i> is a sentence
with a definite subject.</p><p class=""><b class="">jIH vIleghlu'</b><i class=""> Someone indefinite sees me</i> describes
the same situation with an indefinite subject. There is no
"flipping."<br class="">
<i class=""></i></p><p class="">English passive voice "flips" the object to the subject, but this
is completely different from Klingon <b class="">-lu'.</b> The grammar of
a translation does not govern the grammar of the original.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>