[Tlhingan-hol] I'm new, and confused by -lu'

[David Trimboli]

On 7/15/2013 1:11 PM, IH wrote:
> Hi, everyone! I'm a complete beginner in learning Klingon; I started
> last week. I'm using The Klingon Dictionary and looking online for
> help as well.

maj, chomuvpu'mo' jIQuch.

Do we still have a Beginners' Grammarian?

> I'm having trouble understanding the use of the suffix -lu'. I
> understand when it's used for passive voice, as in the example from
> TKD:
>
> Daqawlu'taH, "you are to be remembered"

I suggest you try not to think of -lu' in terms of passive voice; you'll 
only confuse yourself. Instead, always think of -lu' as meaning "someone 
or something unspecified does <verb>."

Daqawlu'taH
Someone or something unspecified continuously remembers you

It just so happens that this can sometimes be translated into English 
passive voice, but not always.

> However, in some other examples I have no idea why it's there, for
> instance another example found just under that one:
>
> HeghqangmoHlu'pu', "it made him/her willing to die"

"Someone or something unspecified caused him/her/it to be willing to die."

> Should I interpret this in a passive voice, as, "he/she was caused to
> be willing to die"?

You can translate it that way, but your English teacher would get angry 
at you.

> Another confusing one is not from TKD, but I saw
> it on the kli.org website:
>
> Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam, "Today is a good day to die."
>
> Here it seems like -lu' is letting us know that it's a good day for
> some indefinite subject to die.

Exactly! "In order for <indefinite subject> to die, this day is good."

> In English we just use the
> to-infinitive for that, but I guess Klingon doesn't have infinitives?

It does not.

> So is -lu' a common way to form something similar to an infinitive?

It's only like an infinitive in that the verb has no specific subject. 
But I would say that an "indefinite subject" is not the same as no 
subject at all.

> What about the option of making the verb a noun (I don't know how,
> perhaps using -ghach, or using nothing at all) and then since you
> can't use -'meH anymore, using -vaD? Or would that be wrong?

Yeccch. Avoid nominalizing verbs unless you really need to. You *could* 
say {DaHjajvaD QaQ Hegh} "death is good for today," because {Hegh} 
happens to have a noun form, but you're unlikely to get the right 
meaning. Even this hack-job of mine means something like "the day 
benefits from death" instead of "dying today would be a good thing for 
the one who dies."

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/