SuStel:

This is an old question. I think the combination is meaningless. If it meant anything at all, it would probably be action taken by someone unspecified, but I don't think it really means that.

ok thanks. This whole matter *feels* to me like, combining {-lu'} with {-wI'}, thus writing something like {leghlu'wI'}, which I don't *feel* as something actually making sense. (but I may be wrong, and if I am, please do correct me..) jevreH:

My intuition is someone was just trying to get around the prohibition against using -ghach on suffixless verbs by tossing -lu‘ on there since it wouldn’t really change the meaning.

Yeah.. I thought of this too, while initially reading the {vanglu'ghach}. Seeing it, reminded me of the "grammarian's desk", where krankor wrote (if I remember correctly) that one could use the combination of {-neS} with {-ghach}, as a way to get around the prohibition of using {-ghach} on suffixless verbs. Although, I never actually bought that argument.. I didn't feel it actually making sense. ~ mayqel qunen'oS

On Jan 16, 2020, at 09:07, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:



...

On Jan 16, 2020, at 08:59, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

This whole matter *feels* to me like, combining {-lu'} with {-wI'}, thus writing something like {leghlu'wI'}, which I don't *feel* as something actually making sense.

I’ve heard arguments that something like {leghlu'wI'} *could* mean something like “one that is seen” (i.e., the {-lu'} “flips” {-wI'} so that the formed noun is the object of the verb rather than the subject, much in the way that {-lu'} “flips” prefixes), and I can sort of see the train of thought that leads there, but I am unconvinced that it actually works that way and I am nearly certain it’s not supported by canon.

That said, *if*, {-lu'} + {-wI'} works that way, which is a BIG if, since I don’t think it does and I expect I’m not alone, it *could* work similarly for {-lu'} + {-ghach}, making *{vanglu'ghach} an “action” in the sense of some action that is carried out rather than “action” in the sense of the act of acting. However, we have no evidence to support this that I know of, and in the absence of any such evidence I don’t think it can be meaningfully interpreted as anything. If the {-lu'} wasn’t added for the purpose of getting around “bare {-ghach}” being highly marked, then I suspect it was meant to disambiguate the different possible meanings of the English noun “action”. Wherever you encountered that word should probably have been translated to avoid using it, though.

On Jan 16, 2020, at 09:23, "jevreh@qeylis.net" <jevreh@qeylis.net> wrote:

I can see where being able to do something like leghlu’boghwI’ might be useful.

{-bogh} and {-wI'} are both type 9. But yeah, I think anyone trying to do something with {-lu'} + {-wI'} would be better served by doing something with {-bogh} instead, in most cases, e.g., {vay' leghlu'bogh}.

Following your idea of disambiguation, perhaps the writer forgot that we have Da that is specifically that kind of “act”?

I wasn’t talking about disambiguating the verb “act”, but disambiguating different uses of “action” as a noun. For example, contrast these definitions of “action” from Merriam-Webster:

1a: a thing done : DEED b: the accomplishment of a thing usually over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition cactions plural : BEHAVIOR, CONDUCT unscrupulous actions d: INITIATIVE, ENTERPRISE a man of action

(There’s many more definitions, but 1a and 1d sufficiently capture the distinction I was talking about. I don’t think any of these subdefinitions under (1) aligns with {Da} but I do think some of the others which I haven’t reproduced here do.

Great discussion. If I were to guess at what {vanglu’ghach} could mean, based on the way {-ghach} works with other suffixes and on what you are rightly pointing out about what {-lu’} does to a verb, I’d probably come up with “the anonymity of action”, which is not a particularly meaningful noun, from my perspective. I suggest it less because I think that such an interpretation of {vanglu’gach} is useful than I do to illustrate why {vanglu’ghach} is almost certainly not a useful addition to Klingon vocabulary. Maybe one could stretch one’s imagination to illustrate an example where the inability to identify one who does a thing is the focus of meaning one needs a noun for, but it would be a long stretch, and we’ve gone decades without needing that word. We can probably go decades more before such a need arises. Similarly, I’d interpret {leghlu’wI’} as one who anonymously sees. In other words, an unidentifiable seer, like {ja’lu’wI’} might be the narrator of a story, as viewed from the reality of the story itself. “Where is that voice coming from?” Or maybe Klingon has the perfect word to describe the source of those voices in my head... See how weird this gets? Nominalizing a verb with {-lu’}? I agree that it’s probably a bad idea. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:26 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/16/2020 10:07 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:

...

...

On Jan 16, 2020, at 08:59, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

This whole matter *feels* to me like, combining {-lu'} with {-wI'}, thus writing something like {leghlu'wI'}, which I don't *feel* as something actually making sense. I’ve heard arguments that something like {leghlu'wI'} *could* mean something like “one that is seen” (i.e., the {-lu'} “flips” {-wI'} so that the formed noun is the object of the verb rather than the subject, much in the way that {-lu'} “flips” prefixes), and I can sort of see the train of thought that leads there, but I am unconvinced that it actually works that way and I am nearly certain it’s not supported by canon. It isn't.

And this analysis relies on the idea that -lu' "flips" the subject of the verb to the object, when it does no such thing. -lu' simply means the subject is indefinite instead of definite. The object remains the same. The prefix "flipping" is simply an acknowledgement that, since there is no subject, the first and only argument to the verb to consider is the object.

jIH mulegh HoD The captain sees me is a sentence with a definite subject.

jIH vIleghlu' Someone indefinite sees me describes the same situation with an indefinite subject. There is no "flipping."

English passive voice "flips" the object to the subject, but this is completely different from Klingon -lu'. The grammar of a translation does not govern the grammar of the original.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org