[tlhIngan Hol] expressing "they are there"

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Feb 17 06:10:30 PST 2021

On 2/17/2021 8:12 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> Now forget the romulans, and assume we want to say "they are there", 
> without specifying who these "they" actually are. Shouldn't we write 
> the following?
> pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'
> they are there
> Wouldn't this be the correct way to say it? It seems weird, but I 
> can't see anything wrong with it.
> The only alternative I could thing of is writing just {pa' chaHtaH}. 
> But the only meanings I get from this are:
> 1. "they continuously are the there".
> 2. "they are there" but the the identity of these "they" isn't just 
> something unspecified, but rather something missing from the sentence. 
> In other words, this sentence feels like someone saying "there, are 
> the.." and that's it.
> So, the only reasonable choice is saying {pa' chaHtaH chaH'e'}. But am 
> I correct on this?

No, just say *pa' chaHtaH.* Or just *pa' chaH* if the continuousness of 
it is throwing you.

When you're linking a pronoun with another noun, the pronoun is the 
subject of the sentence. TKD tells us this.

Remember, in copula sentences, THERE IS NO VERB. The pronoun is not a 
verb which some subject is performing. It's still a pronoun.

The only time you have *X pronoun Y'e'* is when X and Y are nouns (or 
noun phrases), not pronouns. *chaH* is not a noun; it is a pronoun.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210217/75de76e6/attachment-0005.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list