<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/21/2020 11:28 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOvnN+p3CajBqYdSQnrmYJ15iFvOQWWf7jTZseRT8wePhQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:22 AM
SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Ungrammatical. No, there's no rule against it, but it's
obviously not said this way. The <b>chaH</b> is NOT the
verb <i>are.</i> It's the pronoun <i>they, them.</i> In
Klingon, pronouns are not verbs, even when they are the
center of a copula sentence.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">I'm not sure it's quite so clearly
defined as that.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>See my other post. This falls in the area between clearly
grammatical and clearly ungrammatical.</p>
<p>There certainly is some verbiness to pronouns when they operate
in an identity, in that the identity may be continuous or
completed or beginning or interrogative or conditional, etc. But
pronouns still aren't verbs. They don't take verb prefixes, they
don't take objects, they can't be nominalized, and when they're
not tying two nouns together they are the subject of the sentence.
<b>chaH</b> doesn't mean <i>they are;</i> it just means <i>they,
them.</i> The <i>are</i> comes from translating it into
English, which requires a form of the verb <i>be</i> in this kind
of sentence. In the Klingon, you just shove a pronoun next to a
noun to make them equivalent.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>