<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/2021 11:17 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:92EC0EC9-1F07-41D8-B7AE-BD61F10F9A06@mac.com">
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Indefinite subjects are neither singular nor plural. They're
indefinite.</p>
<p>Thinking of indefinite subjects as singular because you translate
them as English impersonal <i>one</i> is understandable, but it
shows you thinking in English and applying English grammar to
Klingon. I can see no reason why the combination of <b>-chuq</b>
and <b>-lu'</b> can't work. Whoever is doing the action, they're
doing it among themselves.</p>
<p><b>'ejDo'Daq boQchuqlu'.<br>
</b><i>On a starship, people help each other.</i></p>
<p>That there is no plural version of English impersonal <i>one</i>
is a fact of English, not of Klingon.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:92EC0EC9-1F07-41D8-B7AE-BD61F10F9A06@mac.com">
<div class="">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?”</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no implication of a singular indefinite subject here.
You simply used a singular subject when translating it into
English.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:92EC0EC9-1F07-41D8-B7AE-BD61F10F9A06@mac.com">
<div class="">The use of {-chuq} implies two nouns as Indefinite
Subject. It takes at least two to do anything to each other. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There are no nouns as subject. The subject is indefinite.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:92EC0EC9-1F07-41D8-B7AE-BD61F10F9A06@mac.com">
<div class="">Maybe this is fine, but it feels weird and I don’t
think I’ve run into any canon to support it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, we haven't. It feels weird because we don't do it in English.
But what it means in Klingon seems perfectly sensible.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:92EC0EC9-1F07-41D8-B7AE-BD61F10F9A06@mac.com">
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>