[tlhIngan Hol] placement of rIntaH relative to the verb

[nIqolay Q]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:03 PM Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:

> Someone has already quoted the very end of TKD section 6.2.5.
>
> > Finally, the use of {rIntaH} to indicate that an action is accomplished
> (section 4.2.7) is another example of the two-verb (or two-sentence)
> construction.
>
> Based on this information, I treat {rIntaH} as its own sentence. I do not
> place it between another sentence’s verb and its subject.
>

paq'batlh, p. 180-181, lines 22-23:

>
> *ghIq Qo'noSDaq Qap rIntaH 'e' SovqeylIS*
>
> *Then, the time came when Kahless sawThat his work on Kronos was done,*
>
If *rIntaH* is its own sentence, then it's what *'e'* would refer to, and
the phrase would be interpreted as:
*ghIq Qo'noSDaq Qap. rIntaH 'e' Sov qeylIS. *
*Then he worked on Qo'noS. He knew that it was accomplished.*
This doesn't make much sense, because the *ghIq* clearly is intended to
apply to the accomplishment of Kahless's work, not the work itself.
Kahless's work on Qo'noS started long before this point in the story, so it
doesn't make sense to introduce it with *ghIq*, "subsequently, then".

If *rIntaH* is a part of the sentence with *Qap*, then *'e'* would refer to
everything before, and the phrase would be interpreted as:
*ghIq Qo'noSDaq Qap rIntaH. 'e' Sov qeylIS. **Then he finished working on
Qo'noS. Kahless knew that.*
This fits the translation and the context of the sentence.


> {qar'a'} is explicitly said to be able to follow the sentence *or* to
> appear immediately after the verb, and is not mentioned in the section on
> complex sentences. I won’t extrapolate from it to {rIntaH} (though Andrew
> Strader obviously did).
>

I suspect the primary reason {qar'a'} is not mentioned in the section on
complex sentences is that it was introduced in the Appendix to TKD, and
thus did not exist when the section on complex sentences was written.

Like {qar'a'}, {rIntaH} is also explicitly said to follow the verb.

> That is, instead of using the suffix {-ta',} a special verbal construction
> can *follow the verb* which indicates the accomplished action.
>
I know that Okrand's use of terminology in TKD was sometimes imprecise, but
I think he could probably tell the difference between "follow the verb" and
"follow the sentence".

Another piece of circumstantial evidence: In section 6.2.5, there are
explicit explanations or glosses pointing out that phrases with* 'e'*, *net*,
*neH*, and verbs of saying are considered as two sentences:

> {qama'pu' DIHoH 'e' luSov} <They know we kill prisoners.>
> This sentence is actually two: (1) {qama'pu' DIHoH} <We kill prisoners>
> ({qama'pu'} <prisoners,> {DIHoH} <we kill them>); (2) {'e' luSov} <They
> know that> ({'e'} <that,> {luSov} <they know it>). The pronoun {'e'} refers
> to the previous sentence, <We kill prisoners.>
>


> {Dalegh vIneH} <I want you to see him/her.>
> ({Dalegh} <you see him/her,> {vIneH} <I want it>)
>


> {qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'}
> or {HIqaghQo' qaja'pu'} <I told you not to interrupt me.>
> This is literally <I told you, "Don't interrupt me!"> or <"Don't interrupt
> me" I told you> ({qaja'pu'} <I told you,> {HIqaghQo'} <don't interrupt
> me!>).
>

This isn't done for *rIntaH*. The example sentence

> {luHoH rIntaH} <they have killed him/her> ({HoH} <kill>)
>
is not followed with an explanation like

> This is actually two sentences, literally meaning <They killed him/her. It
> remains finished.>
>
further suggesting that despite being a two-verb construction, it's not
considered the same sort of thing as *'e'* and verbs of saying and so on.

Lastly, section 6.2.5 also says

> In complex sentences of this type, the second verb never takes an aspect
> suffix (section 4.2.7).
>
*rIntaH* is the second verb, but it's 50% aspect suffix, suggesting that
the *rIntaH* construction is not a complex sentence of that type.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200124/1fc6cb13/attachment-0016.htm>