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