Am 05.07.2019 um 21:24 schrieb SuStel:

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,

I disagree with that, based on what you have tought me: pronouns are not
verbs. (even though they are treated as such in some cases)

Pronouns are not verbs. Pronouns can be linked to nouns, and pronouns can link nouns. When they are performing this linking function they may use verb suffixes to describe the nature of the link: is it continuous, is it a condition, is it in question, etc. TKD calls pronouns linked to nouns the subject of the sentence, while when pronouns link nouns together TKD calls the topic noun the subject.

With all that, there's little difficulty in interpreting -lu' on a pronoun: the topic noun has been made indefinite. I don't know whether this combination is allowed, but it's not difficult to understand.

DujDaq ghaHtaH HoD'e' The captain is on the ship.
DujDaq ghaHlu' Someone indefinite is on the ship.

HoD ghaH loDvetlh'e' That man is the captain.
HoD ghaHlu' Someone indefinite is the captain.

We know that -lu' reverse the object-subject,

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, NO IT DOESN'T! Everyone needs to unlearn this falsehood immediately.

-lu' makes the subject indefinite. Nothing whatsoever happens to the object. You're confusing prefix-agreement with actual subject and object. When using -lu', the prefixes are used in a different way, but subject (or lack thereof) and object remain as they were.

HoD legh la' The commander sees the captain.
HoD leghlu' Someone indefinite sees the captain.

jIH cholegh SoH You see me.
jIH vIleghlu' Someone indefinite sees me.

The object always remains the object. The only thing that changes is the prefix used.

so if you accept -lu' at a
pronoun, you treat it like a transitive verb. Besides, -lu' reverse the
meaning of the prefix, but pronouns do not have any prefix in
to-be-sentences.

To-be sentences also don't have objects. Adding a -lu' changes absolutely nothing about the transitivity of a verb.

In the phrase, {verengan ghaH}, the subject is {ghaH}. Adding -lu' does
not take that away. {ghaHlu'} sounds to me like {one is himmed} or such
nonsense. Theoretically expaning this to a plural form, what prefix
should you take in {tlhIngan maHlu'}? {tlhIngan DImaHlu'}? We are being
Klingoned?

I specifically said adding -lu' makes sense for third-person "to be" sentences where one noun is linked to another. You can't turn verengan ghaH into a sentence with an indefinite subject. But you could turn verengan ghaH qurwI''e' The greedy one is a Ferengi into an indefinite-subject sentence: verengan ghaHlu' Someone indefinite is a Ferengi.

You have fallen into the common trap of thinking that Klingon -lu' maps directly into English passive voice. It doesn't. English passive voice is sometimes a good way to translate -lu', but the grammar is dissimilar.

There is no rule forbidding it, but also non allowing it. You your guess
still is just a guess and we cannot know for sure it is correct or makes
sense. Until Maltz confirms.

You bet. In which part of this conversation did I said you could definitely put a -lu' on a pronoun? I said I could see no problem with it. I didn't endorse it. I recommend nobody use it without further evidence. But if somebody does use it, I can see no evidence-based argument against it.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name