It’s possible but not common. In fact, I could find only one example where Okrand used {-lu} with either {-‘egh} or {-chuq} on the same verb: potlhbe'chugh yay qatlh pe''eghlu'? If winning is not important, then why keep score? (TKW) __ Voragh ____________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of André Müller One cannot use {-'egh} with a verb that is intransitive, except when adding another suffix like {-moH}. Especially stative verbs don't work alone with {'-egh}. You can perform an action unto yourself, or many people can perform an action unto each other. So it does break a direct rule, and doesn't make sense semantically. It's like *{Qong'egh} or *{Qongchuq}. Quchlu' = someone is happy *Quch'egh = she is happy *oneself; they are happy *themselves *Quch'eghlu' = someone is happy *oneself *Quchchuq = they are happy *each other *Quchchuqlu' = some people are happy *each other The asterisk marks the ungrammaticality here. But with {-moH} it works just fine. For brevity I just pick one translation per line (using she/her), but of course a zero prefix can mean many things: QuchmoH = she makes her happy QuchmoHlu' = someone makes her happy Quch'eghmoH = she makes herself happy QuchchuqmoH = they make themselves happy Quch'eghmoHlu' = someone makes themself/themselves happy QuchchuqmoHlu' = some people make each other happy Now with a fully transitive verb such as {legh} everything would work: legh = she sees (her) leghlu' = someone sees her legh'egh = she sees herself leghchuq = they see themselves legh'eghlu' = someone sees themself leghchuqlu' = some people see themselves (etc.) Am Di., 14. Sept. 2021 um 14:20 Uhr schrieb mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>>: Is there anything strange in using {-'egh}/{-chuq} with {-lu'}? Quch'eghlu' QuchchuqmoHlu' I don't see anything grammatically wrong, but using {-'egh}/{-chuq} with {-lu'}, gives me the feeling as in using {-lu'} with {-wI'} (e.g. HIvlu'wI'), which although it doesn't break any rules, it's something we don't actually use. ~ Dana'an

On 9/14/2021 9:57 AM, SuStel wrote:

On 9/14/2021 8:19 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

...

Is there anything strange in using {-'egh}/{-chuq} with {-lu'}?

potlhbe’chugh yay, qatIh pe’‘eghlu’?

Yeesh, that'll teach me to copy and paste without checking the *qaghwI'mey!* potlhbe'chugh yay, qatlh pe''eghlu'? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/14/2021 11:29 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Am 14.09.2021 um 15:58 schrieb SuStel:

...

...

potlhbe’chugh yay, qatIh pe’‘eghlu’?

Yeesh, that'll teach me to copy and paste without checking the *qaghwI'mey!*

potlhbe'chugh yay, qatlh pe''eghlu'?

Since when do YOU care about the appearance of the qaghwI'mey? ;-)

I just remember a long and big discussion we had about that some years ago, where you kept beating on me because I didn't like back and fourth tilting qaghwI'mey. With today's message, you seem to agree with me.

muQuchmoH wanI'vam.

The qaghwI'mey that I copied act like quotation marks, curling both ways. That is not appropriate for Klingon. Using curly quotes correctly for Klingon would look like this: *potlhbe’chugh vay**’, patlh pe**’**’eghlu**’?* Clearly, you still don't understand what that older conversation was about. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/14/2021 11:54 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Clearly, we keep misunderstanding each other, and I sometimes wonder if you do it intentionally. For example in this case, you prove exactly what *I* was arguing back then.

You wrote yourself today: "Using curly quotes correctly for Klingon would look like this" but when I said that same phrase in the older discussion, you replied that the direction of the quotes does not matter, and there is no "correct" way to write the apostrophe.

I prefer not to restart that discussion. It's pointless.

If you don't want to restart the discussion, don't post messages that restart the discussion. ("I wanna say something snarky at you, but I don't want you to have a comeback.") And certainly don't write /two/ new messages on the topic. There is no "correct" way to write apostrophes, because the system we use to write Klingon is completely arbitrary anyway. But there is an /ugly/ way to write the apostrophes, and that is where they change directions. The text I copied and pasted used quotation marks in both directions, and I chided myself for not checking and correcting that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/14/2021 12:12 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

SuStel:

...

But there is an /ugly/ way to write the apostrophes, and that is where they change directions.

Well, that's exactly what I wrote in that older discussion and what you did not want to agree.

Sure. Whatever. Well done. Here's a cookie. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/14/2021 11:17 AM, Will Martin wrote:

The only part that seems weird to me (besides the already mentioned problem with stative verbs) is the use of {-chuqlu’}. It’s just a gut reaction since I tend to think of indefinite subjects as singular. {not Sovlu’.} “One never knows.” We don’t know who the One is, hence the Indefinite Subject, and likely more than one individual could stand in the place of the Indefinite Subject, but can the Indefinite Subject be plural? Maybe, but I’m not so sure.

Indefinite subjects are neither singular nor plural. They're indefinite. Thinking of indefinite subjects as singular because you translate them as English impersonal /one/ is understandable, but it shows you thinking in English and applying English grammar to Klingon. I can see no reason why the combination of *-chuq* and *-lu'* can't work. Whoever is doing the action, they're doing it among themselves. *'ejDo'Daq boQchuqlu'. */On a starship, people help each other./ That there is no plural version of English impersonal /one/ is a fact of English, not of Klingon.

The canon example that eventually arose fit this Singular Indefinite Subject model of the grammar. {potlhbe'chugh yay, qatlh pe''eghlu’?} If winning is not important, why does one keep score?”

There is no implication of a singular indefinite subject here. You simply used a singular subject when translating it into English.

The use of {-chuq} implies two nouns as Indefinite Subject. It takes at least two to do anything to each other.

There are no nouns as subject. The subject is indefinite.

Maybe this is fine, but it feels weird and I don’t think I’ve run into any canon to support it.

No, we haven't. It feels weird because we don't do it in English. But what it means in Klingon seems perfectly sensible.

Add that the verb prefixes with {-lu’} always use the singular third person object indicated, while basically reversing the subject/object functions of the prefix, heavily suggesting a singular Indefinite Subject. We can say {vIparHa’lu’}, (somebody likes me), and {wIparHa’lu’} (somebody likes us), but we can’t say *DIparHa’lu’* (multiple somebodies like us). It’s specifically disallowed by the grammar.

The prefixes get "reversed" because there is no subject to agree with, so they agree with only the object. There is no actual reversal happening here. The fact that the prefixes that normally indicate singular, third-person object are used might be pure coincidence. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 9/14/2021 11:48 AM, Will Martin wrote:

My issue is that {-chuqlu’} has to have a plural subject. There doesn’t seem to be any other setting in which {-lu’} implies a plural Indefinite subject. That makes it exceptional.

Does the language grant that exception? You say it obviously does.

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not granting exceptions here. You are correct that the text of TKD says that *-chuq* must be used with plural subjects. On that basis, it is fair enough to say that there is some question whether an indefinite subject qualifies.

Is it obvious to most Klingonists, or do you have a unique certainty?

Gimme a break. I offered an opinion, that using *-chuq* and *-lu'* together offers no conceptual difficulty. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name