[tlhIngan Hol] can a {Daq} and a {Sep} be at the sea

[mayqel qunen'oS]

Thank you SuStel and De'vID for taking the time to reply. Comments on
specific parts of your posts follow.

jIH:
> Could we use the {Daq}
SuStel:
> I'd use Daq if the location is fairly small, like "in that harbor,"

Ok, thanks; good to know.

The thing which led me to wonder about whether {Daq} would be an
appropriate choice, was my being influenced from the {chenmoHlu'meH
Daq} "construction site"; I don't know why, but because of it, I
thought that a {Daq} could only be a location on land.

De'vID:
> KGT tells us that a {Sep} is a "region" in the sense of a
> "specific area whose borders are definable" and that these
> "regions" were politically distinct in the past, and "country"
> might've been an appropriate translation when this was the case.

While I was writing the first post of this thread, this definition of
{Sep} came to my mind.

But then I thought, that perhaps the "country" meaning of {Sep} isn't
"binding", meaning that perhaps we could use {Sep} too in order to
describe any kind of region/territory, whether it would be on the
land, or at the sea. And it was that in order to avoid the (possible)
obstacle of the kgt definition, I thought of using {SepHom}.

Then the thought came to mind to say {Daq'a'}; but then a little bird
informed me of the Star Trek 2009 deleted scene. There we have
{tlhIngan wo' Daq'a' bo'elpu'} for "you have entered the jurisdiction
of the Klingon Empire". If the English translation came from the hand
of god himself, thus making it Ca'Non, then obviously we have {Daq'a'}
(n) "jurisdiction", and the option of using the {Daq'a'} for a purpose
as the one of the original example goes out the window.

Anyways, in case that the kgt definition of {Sep} is indeed binding,
perhaps we could play with {Daq}, adjectives as {tIn}/{vaS}, and the
{-qu'}/{-chu'} suffixes to express meanings as in the original
example.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ