On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:24:44PM -0400, SuStel 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 <mailto: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.
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 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.*
This sounds like the kind of thing you'd ask a Klingon native speaker about (or, more realistically, that you'd try to elicit from that native speaker) in order to determine whether the pronouns-used-as-verbs were actually *verbs* morphologically, or just pronouns that could take certain verb suffixes in the absence of an actual verb. If {ghaHlu'} is possible with a meaning similar to {ghaH vay''e'}, that would be evidence for them being more verb-like, whereas if it weren't it would imply that they were closer to just pronouns with verb suffixes crammed on. - SapIr