Or, "all is -lu' good for..".

Suppose I want to write a long passage with the subject of lets say training, and whether someone who has a demanding day job, can actually do serious training.

Naturally, during this passage, I will need to say a lot "someone who has a demanding job.. someone who works many hours a day.. someone who is often tired.. someone who is able or unable to simultaneously train, and so on..".

And naturally my choice would be, since I'm writing about someone unspecified, to use -lu'.

But here starts the problem.. One can't use simultaneously -lu' and -laH.

On the other hand, in a long passage where in order to refer to "someone" the -lu' is used, it is not advised to be constantly switching from -lu' to vay', when the need to say "someone is/isn't able to do whatever".

So, in a long passage, the only way to avoid this problem is either using only vay' from the start, or just saying wa' nuv, to refer to "a person".

Meaning, that unfortunately all is -lu' really good for, is to produce the equivalent of passive voice, in a language which doesn't have a passive voice, to start with..

You'd have to show me your attempt before I thought this was a problem. In a long passage I would expect the writer to start using specific nouns: vumqu'wI' hard worker, Hoch jaj qaStaHvIS rep law' vumbogh ghot person who works for many hours a day, Doy'wI' tired one, qeqlaHbe'wI' one who cannot train.

I use -lu' all the time, and not regularly to translate English passive voice.

Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs into an irreconcilable -lu'/laH clash.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name