On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

Many times, you will encounter {-meH} verbs that modify a noun with no subject or object in the phrase. This is as close to an infinitive (like “to learn”, which has no subject) as Klingon has. It’s really the only time that a verb in a well-formed Klingon sentence has no subject; not even an indefinite subject. No subject at all. There are instances where such a verb may have a subject and perhaps even an object, but if the verb with {-meH} is modifying a noun, it often has neither subject nor object.

I'm not sure it's quite right to say that a {-meH} verb modifying a noun can have no subject. Apparently it's not common for noun-purpose verbs to use {-lu'}, but there's still an implied, vague subject: somebody is learning from a {ghojmeH taj}. The subject is an unspecified person or thing, so there's just the third-person null prefix.

I don't think that's what's happening. Sometimes Klingon will just use the bare verb to refer to the general idea of the verb without there being anyone doing anything to anyone. It's infinitive in nature, but there is no subject. It's not a subject meaning "unspecified person or thing"; it's literally no subject.

(I recall reading a while back somewhere that some languages, including many Native American ones, don't have infinitive forms, and instead use other constructions like an unmarked third person form, and I thought "Aha, that must be where Klingon gets it from.")

If your third person happens to be unmarked, that's not terribly surprising. I don't think something like ghojmeH taj has the verb in the third person. I don't think it has any person at all. It just so happens that the unmarked verb with no person is identical to the verb in the third person.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name