[tlhIngan Hol] placement of rIntaH relative to the verb

[Will Martin]

ngoDvam Daj Datu’mo’ qatlho’.

‘op Hu’ choH yaHwIj Daq. DaH ngaSwI’meyDaq bIHtaH Hoch paqwIj. ngoDlIj vI’ollaHbe’. TKD vItu’DI’ vI’ol vIneH. nav yIngu’.

qaHonbe’. qavoqbej, ‘ach <<yIvoq ‘ach yI’ol>> net Sov.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Jan 24, 2020, at 9:51 AM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The discussion of {rIntaH} from TKD:
> The meaning of {-ta'} can also be indicated syntactically. That is, instead of using the suffix {-ta',} a special verbal construction can follow the verb which indicates the accomplished action. This special verb is {rIn} <be finished, accomplished,> and in this usage it always takes the suffix {-taH} <continuous> (see below) and the third-person pronominal prefix (0).
> 
> The discussion of {qar'a'} from TKDa:
> This word either follows the verb or else comes at the end of the sentence. Both of the following are correct:
> 
>     {De' Sov qar'a' HoD}
>     {De' Sov HoD qar'a'} <The captain knows the information, right?> ({De'} <information,> {Sov} <he/she knows it,> {HoD} <captain>)
> 
> MO uses "follow the verb" to refer to the placement of both constructions. In the {qar'a'} example {De' Sov qar'a' HoD}, the special construction described as following the verb comes before the explicit subject {HoD}. It seems reasonable to assume that when MO speaks of a special verb construction following the verb, he means right after the verb and before the subject. {rIntaH} is a special verb construction that follows the verb, so I conclude it would go before the subject: {qa'vam De' je' rIntaH valQIS.}
> 
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:27 AM SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
> On 1/24/2020 9:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> 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..
> Except we see plenty of such subjects. Two examples:
> 
> Noun-noun, relative clause with subject and object, apposition, title: yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD (Skybox S25)
> Purpose clause: jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb (newsgroup)
> If one argues that Klingons don't use these constructions in subjects, one is wrong.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200124/c17c5bc6/attachment.htm>