On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 21:24, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/5/2019 1:14 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 17:15, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's something, which feels strange seeing/reading the {ghaHlu'}, but I can't find what it actually is.
I think this is impossible, because {-lu'} works with the pronominal prefixes, and pronouns never take prefixes.
Prefixes aren't inherent to the job that *-lu'* plays. Using *-lu'* simply makes you use *different* prefixes.
If something never takes prefixes to begin with, how can it ever take different prefixes? That's the problem I have with trying to interpret something like {ghaHlu'}.
The sentence *Daqawlu'taH** you will be remembered* is simply a pronoun-elided version of *SoH Daqawlu'taH.* The prefix doesn't make the indefinite subject work; it simply agrees in a different way than sentences with subjects. All the *-lu'* really means is "no subject here."
I don't see what this has to do with pronouns. We know how {-lu'} works with (normal) verbs.
I can't see any problem with using *-lu'* with the third-person pronouns. First- and second-person pronoun "to be" sentences use the pronoun itself as the subject; third-person "to be" sentences can take third-person nouns as their subjects. *verengan ghaHlu'chugh, qurlu'ba'** If one is a Ferengi, one is obviously greedy.* This is just the no-subject equivalent to *verengan ghaHchugh vay''e', qurba' vay'vetlh.*
But you do see a problem with using {-lu'} with {jIH} and {SoH}. "I, who am indefinite, am..." would be a weird thing to say (outside of maybe a philosophical work). I think this extends to {ghaHlu'} as well. I read {ghaHlu'} as something self-contradictory, like "he or she, who is indefinite, is...". I understand your interpretation, but I don't see any reason to think third-person works any differently than first- or second-person. -- De'vID