On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:18, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

De'vID:
> Why wouldn't you just use {vay'}, and then subsequently
> use {ghaH} to refer back to that person?

I'm afraid you misunderstood me.

I don't have a problem with using vay' and then ghaH, as you suggested. It is what I would naturally do, in order to avoid hitting the -lu'/-laH problem.

There's your problem, though. You'd only do this to "avoid hitting" the {-lu'}/{-laH} "problem". But why wouldn't you be doing this to begin with, *regardless* of whether {-lu'}/{-laH} were the same suffix type or not? Imagine if Klingon didn't lump {-lu'} and {-laH} into the same suffix class and you could use them together. What would change?

The point of this thread, was to share my disappointment; on one hand we have a suffix, which we could use in order to refer to someone indefinite, but on the other hand, the -lu'/-laH rule, undermines our ability to use -lu' to its fullest, thus limiting its use to expressing passive voice.

I don't think it does, though. You've claimed repeatedly this is a problem, but you've not really demonstrated this by writing a passage in Klingon which runs into this problem. So let's pretend that {-lu'laH} is permissible. What is the passage you would've written?

De'vID