While we don't have an example of rIntaH with an overt subject, we do have another data point we can use. When Okrand describes the tag question qar'a', he says it can "follow the verb", the same phrase he uses to describe the placement of rIntaH. And we do have an example of qar'a' followed by an explicit subject: De' Sov qar'a' HoD The captain knows the information, right? Since Okrand describes both constructions as "following the verb", it seems reasonable to me to conclude that (for example) De' Sov rIntaH HoD The captain knows the information for good is the proper use of rIntaH.



On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:50 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 22:51, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Doing it as {vIje’ rIntaH jIH} only makes sense if, given that written Klingon as we know it is phonetic spelling of spoken Klingon, somehow {rIntaH} has become a Type 10 suffix, so it always follows the verb and its other suffixes, and any subject would follow it. Otherwise, I see no justification for {rIntaH jIH}, since as a sentence, it would have to be {jIrIntaH jIH}. 

If it's acting like a suffix, then it's surely acting like a type 7, namely, the {-ta'} that it's replacing. Since we have no examples of a type 8 ({-neS}) or type 9 following {rIntaH}, and the way we write Klingon is a phonetic transcription of how it's spoken, {vIje' rIntaH jIH} might as well be {vIje'rIntaH jIH} where {-rIntaH} is a two-syllable type 7 suffix. Indeed, since {ta'} "accomplish" and {taH} "continue" are verbs, one might speculate that they were verbs which became suffixes. Perhaps {rIntaH} is undergoing a similar evolution, but has resisted full assimilation as a suffix because it's two syllables.

But until we have a canon (counter)example either way, we can't tell.

--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org