[tlhIngan Hol] placement of rIntaH relative to the verb

[mayqel qunen'oS]

>From the rIntaH and be-verbs thread:

charghwI':
> The one thing I’ve noticed about all of the canon examples cited is that they take the form:
> complete Klingon sentence {rIntaH}. None of them have a subject noun following {rIntaH}
charghwI':
> Maybe that’s a coincidence and a sentence like *taQ rIntaH DevwI’* is grammatical, but I think
> we should at least consider that perhaps that should have been *taQ DevwI’ rIntaH*.
SuStel:
> This is true, and I've considered it, but since it's tangential to the question and unresolved I
> didn't bring it up. Without a clear example, this question must remain unanswered.

This is an interesting matter indeed.

And something which had never crossed my mind..

The way I understood {rIntaH} so far, was that falling in the category
of verb suffixes (or at least a kind of), then it *should* follow
immediately after the verb.

Of course, I now realize that it is an unresolved area of grammar, and
perhaps, until we get a ruling from maltz, perhaps it comes down to
personal preference.

Speaking of which..

Personally, I'd prefer placing it right after the noun, because it
*feels* more direct, and the meaning of the sentence becomes
immediately clearer, especially in cases where we don't have a
"simple" subject, but a more "complex" one, as for instance noun-noun
constructions, {-meH}ed nouns, {-bogh}ed nouns, or even an entire
{-bogh} phrase with it's own subject and object.

Now, one could perhaps argue that klingons wouldn't use "complex" subjects..

But it'd be better if we refrained from such analyses, since doing so
can result in romulan abductions, interrogations, agony, etc..

And as daffy duck says:

'oy' vISIQlaHbe'; 'oy' !
I can't stand pain; it hurts !

~ mayqel qunen'oS