On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 16:43, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

SEE: lo' use, worth, mode (n) lo' use, make use of (v) lo'Ha' waste (v)

These seem to include definitions which are not "canon". The noun {lo'} is defined in the Addendum to TKD as "use". The "mode" definition comes from a message to this mailing list on 2018-02-17: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2018-February/007388.htm... But where is "worth" from? I don't think {lo'Ha'} means "waste" but rather "misuse". {HoS lI' Dalo'Ha'chu'} only means "You are a total waste of good energy" because of the suffix {-chu'}. A more literal translation would be "you perfectly misuse useful energy".

vIlo'laHbe' They are useless to me. I cannot use them. TKD

leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej A sharp knife is nothing without a sharp eye. TKW

lo'laHbe'; chetvI' chIm rur worthless as an empty torpedo tube KGT

lo'laH be valuable (v) lo'laHghach value (n) lo'laHbe'ghach worthlessness (n)

In Section 4.2.9 of the Addendum to TKD, it's clearly implied that {lo'laH} is constructed from {lo'}: {lo'} <use> (noun) ({lo'} <use, make use of>) {lo'laHghach} <value> ({lo'laH} <be valuable>) {lo'laHbe'ghach} <worthlessness> ({lo'laHbe'} <be worthless>) He somewhat contradicts this in a message to the startrek.klingon newsgroup on 1998-02-23: <On the other hand, you're right about {lo'laH} "be valuable." It is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable one), not the verb lo' "use" plus Type 5 suffix -laH "can." It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that -- historical.> The note about the historical connection might've been there to justify the mention of {lo'} in TKDA 4.2.9. He was replying to someone (named Neal) who'd primed him with this question: <Are entries in the dictionaries which are verbs with an attached suffix, such as <chenmoH> "create (v)" and <ja'chuq> "discuss (v)", words in themselves? Or are they merely examples of usage, as I suspect? (With the exception of <lo'laH>.)> So the question he was answering already contained the implication that {lo'laH} was a single word. My own pet theory about this is that when Dr. Okrand was writing the Addendum, he confused himself when he looked at {vIlo'laHbe'} "They are useless to me" and mistook {lo'laHbe'} to mean "be useless". He might've mixed up {lo'} and {lI'}, because {lI'laHbe'} means "cannot be used", which *would* basically mean "be worthless". Obviously, once the 2nd edition of TKD came out, people noticed that {lo'} + {-laH} does not make "be valuable", and he had to retroactively declare {lo'laH} to be a simple verb. Will Martin told this story (in a message to this mailing list dated 2015-11-25): <I don't remember the setting. Likely others were present. Okrand told the story of how {lo'laH} became a separate verb from {lo+laH}, meaning "be valuable" instead of "He can use it". He said that he found that he had used it adjectivally, and given the choice between allowing all adjectives to use {-laH} or making {lo'laH} a separate root verb, he chose the latter. He didn't mention where he had used {lo'laH} adjectivally. It could have, theoretically, been in a line in a movie that was cut, or otherwise been something he had done that never made it to publication. I don't know. But it was something that he considered to be something that, at the time, he couldn't be rid of.> (Was anyone else present who recalls the setting?) In any case, Dr. Okrand subsequently used {lo'laHbe'} with the "be worthless" meaning in the sentences from TKD and KGT quoted above. -- De'vID