Interesting. On one hand, you could say, {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’lu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}, but the scope of genitive functionality includes saying the same thing as {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}. America’s discoverer is the one who discovered America. Unless America lays claim to a guy who is widely known for discovering stuff other than America, itself... which would fit the second term, but not the first... Sent from my iPhone. Will

On Jul 5, 2019, at 12:13 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you charghwI' for taking the time to reply.

Indeed it is uncommon and strange. Perhaps the strange thing with it is, being used to seeing {'oH} and/or {ghaH} with something definite, and suddenly seeing it with the indefinite suffix.

Anyway, as you pointed out, the need never arises to use something like it, so this question was purely theoretical.

And if I remember correctly, something similar may be happening with the simultaneous use of {-lu'} and {-wI'}. i.e. writing something like {leghlu'wI'}.

I think, in a thread here was said, that although *technically* it doesn't break any rules, it would be rather strange to say "someone/something who/which sees, but who/is is indefinite too".

~ bkbhkk _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Considering that I’m part Cherokee, that qualifies as ironic. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’

On Jul 5, 2019, at 6:21 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, 00:13 Will Martin, <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

...

Interesting. On one hand, you could say, {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’lu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’},

{tu'lu'wI'} vIyajbe'.

...

but the scope of genitive functionality includes saying the same thing as {‘ame’rIqa’ tu’wI’ ghaH _qolombaS’e’}. America’s discoverer is the one who discovered America.

Qochqu'ba' Sungpu'.

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

De'vID:

I think this is impossible, because {-lu'} works with the pronominal prefixes, and pronouns never take prefixes.

Indeed.. I hadn't thought of that. ~ khhkhk

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:24:44PM -0400, SuStel wrote:

On 7/5/2019 1:14 PM, De'vID wrote:

...

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 17:15, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:

There's something, which feels strange seeing/reading the {ghaHlu'}, but I can't find what it actually is.

I think this is impossible, because {-lu'} works with the pronominal prefixes, and pronouns never take prefixes.

Prefixes aren't inherent to the job that *-lu'* plays. Using *-lu'* simply makes you use /different/ prefixes.

The sentence *Daqawlu'taH*/you will be remembered/ is simply a pronoun-elided version of *SoH Daqawlu'taH.* The prefix doesn't make the indefinite subject work; it simply agrees in a different way than sentences with subjects. All the *-lu'* really means is "no subject here."

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, qurlu'ba'*/If one is a Ferengi, one is obviously greedy./ This is just the no-subject equivalent to *verengan ghaHchugh vay''e', qurba' vay'vetlh.*

This sounds like the kind of thing you'd ask a Klingon native speaker about (or, more realistically, that you'd try to elicit from that native speaker) in order to determine whether the pronouns-used-as-verbs were actually *verbs* morphologically, or just pronouns that could take certain verb suffixes in the absence of an actual verb. If {ghaHlu'} is possible with a meaning similar to {ghaH vay''e'}, that would be evidence for them being more verb-like, whereas if it weren't it would imply that they were closer to just pronouns with verb suffixes crammed on. - SapIr

On 7/7/2019 12:06 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

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

On 7/8/2019 1:54 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Am 07.07.2019 um 19:35 schrieb SuStel:

...

...

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

In your example you have replaced the prefix with the -lu-suffix. In that case, the object remains the same, of course.

What I man was:

vIlegh - I see him vIleghlu' - he sees me

In this case you are talking about two completely different semantic meanings. One would never replace *vIlegh* with *vIleghlu'* in a sentence to make the subject indefinite, which is the point of *-lu'.* Instead, what you've done is switched the subject and object yourself, and then claimed that adding a *-lu'* did it. Adding a *-lu' *simply erases the subject and triggers the special-case prefixes. Besides, *vIleghlu'* doesn't mean /he sees me,/ it means someone indefinite sees me. The /he/ of the first sentence isn't identified as the one who does it.

So, meaning reversed if {-lu'} is added. That's what TKD says: Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person /subject/ [...] are used to indicate first- or second-person /object/.

Yes, the prefixes are used "in a different way." This is not "reversed," and TKD doesn't say "reversed." There is no reversing going on. When you're using *-lu',* you use a different set of prefixes than usual, a set that indicates "no subject" and first-, second-, or third-person singular or plural object. You look at your object and pick the correct prefix. There is no subject/object switching going on.

And I said that I do. Each time anyone writes a theoretical possibility about the grammar, you get upset and tell us not to do that.

No I don't. I evaluate the logic of the argument and the evidence given for it. If I find it unsupported, I say so. If I can see evidence for it, I'll give my opinion of that evidence and whether I think it supports the proposed possibility. If I find overwhelming evidence for it, I'll endorse the possibility. Like this time. mayqel asked about putting *-lu'* on pronouns and I said I can find no reason why it couldn't be done in certain cases. There is no direct evidence that it CAN be done, so I'm not endorsing it, but as far as following the rules and making semantic sense, I can find no issue with it.

But if you set up a theory, you don't accept any contradiction.

If I propose something that I think makes sense but isn't overwhelmingly supported, I certainly do accept contradiction. When someone points out an unambiguous bit of canon, for instance, that contradicts what I said, then that's that.

Let's just wait for Maltz' answer. There's no reason to keep discussing about such things if we don't know if it's right or not.

Oh, has Maltz been asked for an arbitration? Is that a thing now? See, I don't get to ask Okrand for answers to our little spats here, so all I have to go on is the evidence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 21:24, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/5/2019 1:14 PM, De'vID wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 17:15, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

There's something, which feels strange seeing/reading the {ghaHlu'}, but I can't find what it actually is.

I think this is impossible, because {-lu'} works with the pronominal prefixes, and pronouns never take prefixes.

Prefixes aren't inherent to the job that *-lu'* plays. Using *-lu'* simply makes you use *different* prefixes.

If something never takes prefixes to begin with, how can it ever take different prefixes? That's the problem I have with trying to interpret something like {ghaHlu'}.

The sentence *Daqawlu'taH** you will be remembered* is simply a pronoun-elided version of *SoH Daqawlu'taH.* The prefix doesn't make the indefinite subject work; it simply agrees in a different way than sentences with subjects. All the *-lu'* really means is "no subject here."

I don't see what this has to do with pronouns. We know how {-lu'} works with (normal) verbs.

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, qurlu'ba'** If one is a Ferengi, one is obviously greedy.* This is just the no-subject equivalent to *verengan ghaHchugh vay''e', qurba' vay'vetlh.*

But you do see a problem with using {-lu'} with {jIH} and {SoH}. "I, who am indefinite, am..." would be a weird thing to say (outside of maybe a philosophical work). I think this extends to {ghaHlu'} as well. I read {ghaHlu'} as something self-contradictory, like "he or she, who is indefinite, is...". I understand your interpretation, but I don't see any reason to think third-person works any differently than first- or second-person. -- De'vID

Am 07.07.2019 um 23:15 schrieb SuStel:

We clearly don't all know, since Lieven claimed that *-lu'* "reverse the object-subject."

I can't leave this uncommented in the archives, as it seems I am saying something completely wrong. TKD says clearly: Those prefixes which normally indicate first- or second-person /subject/ [...] are used to indicate first- or second-person /object/. This means that when {-lu'} is added to a verb with such a prefix, then O-S-meaning of that phrase is reversed. All examples show that, and there's not need to deny: {Daqaw} - "you remember it" (you = subject) {Daqawlu'} - "indefinite subject remembers you" (you = object) {vIyaj} - "I understand it" (I = subject) {vIyajlu'} - "indefinite subject understands ME" (I = object) {wIlegh} "we see it/him" (we = subject) {wIleghlu'} "indefinite subject sees us" (we = object) etc.

My point is to show that the subject and object aren't "in" the prefix; the prefix simply agrees with them.

That's basically the same. When I see {qa-} I can certainly read what is object and subject. So it really is "in" the prefix. You are just nitpicking here on the definition. It's chicken or the egg thing. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Object