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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name