SuStel:

> Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs 

> into an irreconcilable -lu'/laH clash.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me.

The problem (or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need to say "someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, without breaking the -lu'/-laH rule.

The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu'taHvIS, 'ej Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and suddenly I need to say "but he is unable to train", I would then need to switch off the -lu', to some other solution.

Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHbe' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv}, {qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, etc.

But doing so, I would have to switch from talking about someone "unspecified", to someone "specified".

Now, don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone" described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by the vay'. In greek we don't have something similar, so I can't *feel* the difference between the two.

But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussion on the -lu', that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu', then it would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (or some other solution) interchangeably.

I'd just use vay' with the -laH and forget about it.

Actually I'd probably use vay' for the whole thing, provided I didn't need to repeat it. vumtaHvIS vay' 'ej Doy'qu'taHvIS, qeqnISchugh 'ach qaqlaHbe'chugh...

Again, I'd need to see this in its larger context. You'll generally have to reword something that will end up with a -laH and -lu' together anyway.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name