On 2/22/2019 2:07 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

I have thought of that solution.

But using a pronoun instead of SaH, is often done; e.g. "the sword is in the ocean" from tkd.

So, I think that choosing to ask by saying {qatlh pa' jIHnIS} or {qatlh pa' jIHnIStaH} is a valid option.

But I don't know which of the two is the correct choice.

I can't say that doing this is wrong, but it's not ideal. Daniel's response is better. The more meaning you try to load onto a pronoun, the more awkward it will be. That said, if you /have/ to say it this way — and you almost certainly don't — what you're really asking is whether you need to use *-taH* to indicate some kind of ongoingness or temporariness of your location. The answer is that we don't know. Okrand is inconsistent with his usage of this. I prefer to use *-taH* when I'm talking about a movable object that may just happen to be somewhere at the moment, but not to use *-taH* when the object is fixed. *vaS'a'Daq 'oH puchpa''e' 'ej puchpa'Daq ghaHtaH Qang'e'.* But this is not an official rule and cannot be consistently demonstrated in the canon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Feb 22, 2019, at 15:05, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Isn't there anyone here who speaks arabic, or a different languages that has not to-be verb? That would interesting to find out how they do that.

Actually Arabic DOES have a verb “to be”; it’s just not used as a copula in the present tense. (It also has a different and very interesting verb-like particle used as a negative copula.) I’m very rusty in Arabic so I’m not going to embarrass myself by attempting a translation of “why do I need to be there” in Arabic, but I don’t really believe the “to be” in this English sentence truly means “to be” in an existential or identity sense. Usually when we use pronouns as copulas in Klingon for “to be” sentences, we’re really talking about identity (tlhIngan maH; raS 'oH; HoD ghaH; yIH bIH), which is not the case in this sentence. “Why do I need to be there” is really asking why my presence is required, which is why in my Klingon suggestions I used jISaHnIS and vIpoQlu'.

Am 22.02.2019 um 23:26 schrieb Daniel Dadap:

Actually Arabic DOES have a verb “to be”; it’s just not used as a copula in the present tense.

Yes, I know. I just wanted to keep it simple. I remember one example: {ana fil bait} = "me in house" so I wondered how they would say "Why must I be there"... Probably something like {lee lazim ana fil bait} "why necessary me in house", but I'm not so sure. Well, it works like Klingon anyway... -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 20:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I prefer to use *-taH* when I'm talking about a movable object that may just happen to be somewhere at the moment, but not to use *-taH* when the object is fixed. *vaS'a'Daq 'oH puchpa''e' 'ej puchpa'Daq ghaHtaH Qang'e'.* But this is not an official rule and cannot be consistently demonstrated in the canon.

Here are the examples I found in canon of {'oHtaH}/{ghaHtaH}: bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'. DujHomDaq ghaHtaH. meyrI'Daq 'oHtaH gho'e'. pa'DajDaq ghaHtaH la''e'. pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'. loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH. No {-taH} on the location of the "1st Construction Site": tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e'. I couldn't find any other examples of {naDev/pa'/[something]Daq ghaH/'oH} though I could've just missed them. I believe the rule is fairly consistent. The location of "1st Construction Site" is a historical fact. It cannot be moved (barring time travel and changing history). OTOH, while we think of "the Great Hall" as a giant building, it's actually just a label for where the High Council usually meets. I guess we don't know much about whether or how often the Great Hall has "moved" in Klingon history, but on Earth, at least, a number of countries have moved their Parliaments or seats of government throughout history due to wars and whatnot. Another example of a label like this is "Air Force One": technically, it applies to any aircraft carrying the American President. But it's become associated with a specific aircraft, the one most commonly used for this purpose. As for DS9, arguably, it is in fact movable (capable of self-generated thrust). There may not be enough examples to extrapolate a rule, but there's at least a pattern. btw, questions never take {-taH}: nuqDaq ghaH ngevwI''e'? nuqDaq 'oH bIQ'a' HeH'e'? nuqDaq 'oH jengva''e'? nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'? nuqDaq 'oH Qe' QaQ'e'? -- De'vID