I swear I posted this on the mailing list before, but when I mentioned it to someone they seemed to think I hadn't. So here it is just to be sure... At qep'a' last year (July 2019) I had a hallway conversation with Dr. Okrand where I discussed the use of the {-taH} suffix on pronouns as "to be". I pointed out that canon seemed to have a tendency to use {-taH} when the subject was mobile and leave it off when the subject was immobile, but we had not been given any rule regarding that use. He responded (with confidence and without time for consideration) that it was not a rule, but a tendency. It is not wrong to leave {-taH} off when talking about mobile objects or to add it on when talking about a mobile object, but that Maltz indeed seemed to follow the tendencies which had been pointed out. janSIy