[tlhIngan Hol] rIntaH and be-verbs

[SuStel]

On 1/23/2020 9:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> Am 23.01.2020 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel:
>> I should have been more careful with my literal translations of these.
>>
>> *jIQuch rIntaH
>> ... and that happiness is over forever./
>> ... and
>> that strangeness is over forever./
>
> I never saw {rIntaH} meaning that something is over, it means that an
> action is accomplished.
>
> From ST3 {vIje' rIntaH} means that valkris has bought the thing, the
> action of buying is complete, in the sense that this situation will last
> forever, not that it's over forever.

This is true for action verbs, because the verb brings about a change of 
state. When you *je',* you change the owner of the object of the 
sentence. *rIntaH* means that the action of buying is over, and the new 
state of ownership is  permanent.

This works generally for action verbs.

*maghwI' vIjon rIntaH
*/I captured the traitor./
I set out to capture the traitor and completed that task. What I did was 
so effective, it can never be undone.

But verbs of quality (without syntax-changing suffixes) do not describe 
an action that brings about a change of state. They simply describe a 
quality. With *rIntaH,* a quality means you set out to be that quality, 
you completed being that quality (so now it's over), and what you've 
done is final.

Maybe you're right in that *rIntaH* doesn't imply /over forever./ 
*jIQuch rIntaH* might mean that I set out to be happy, completed being 
happy, am no longer happy (at least about whatever it was I was happy 
about at the time), and my achievement of happiness at that time cannot 
be undone. It doesn't imply that I'm still happy, in fact it says that 
that particular happiness is over, but it does mean that nothing can be 
done to blemish the accomplishment of happiness I achieved.

That sounds good to me. So *taQ rIntaH DevwI' *would mean that the 
leader set out to be weird and accomplished it, completing the 
weirdness. The weirdness is over now, but that accomplishment of 
weirdness can never be undone.


> I'm still not sure this would work with verbs of quality (which was
> mayqel's question).

I think it works grammatically and semantically. Whether it's something 
one would commonly say is another matter.


> If I say {jIQuch} it's "I'm happy". Adding {rIntaH} would imply an
> ongoing situiation, not that it has ended.

Except *rIntaH* means *-ta'* with finality. When you have *-ta'* you 
have completion of a goal, not something ongoing.


> Meanwhile, the question is:
> Does {jIQuchta'} work, and what does it mean? {-ta'} implies that
> something is accomplished, so what do you accomplish, when you {Quch}?

It means you set out to be happy and you accomplished it. It means the 
happiness came to an end, because it's completed.

If, on the other hand, you want to describe a situation in which you set 
out to be happy and achieved it and are still happy, you'd say *chIch 
jIQuchchoH 'ej jIQuchtaH.*

We have a bit of relevant canon. From /paq'batlh/ we have *bIvalta':*

    *qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh
         Suto'vo'qorDaq qavan
         batlh bIyInta' 'ej bIvalta'*

    /Kahless the unforgettable,
         I welcome you to Sto-vo-kor,
         For you lived wise and honorable./

Here, Kahless has died. He lived honorably (as was his intention, and it 
is over now) and he was wise (as was his intention, and it is over now). 
That's not to say he can't be wise in Sto-vo-kor, but Kotar is 
describing the life of Kahless, which is over, and so therefore is 
everything he did in life.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200123/9b6b6d26/attachment-0015.htm>