Usually, one sees rIntaH used with regards to actions which actually happened. SuHIv rIntaH maHeD rIntaH numagh rIntaH On the other hand though, there's no rule which prohibits writing: nuHIvbe' rIntaH nuHIvlaw' rIntaH For reasons I can't understand, there's something weird in "they've not attacked us and it cannot be undone". It feels like "they set out *not* to attack us, they didn't attack us, and it cannot be undone". Usually you set out to do something, instead of setting out not to do something. And it's even weirder to hear "seemingly/apparently they attacked us and it cannot be undone". I mean, how can you say that the attack cannot be undone, if you can't be sure it happened in the first place ? Unless you're certain the attack happened (which is the thing which can't be undone), and the "seemingly/apparently" has to do with whether it was "they" who did the attack or someone else. Go figure. Let alone the fact that we *can* write: nuQaHneS rIntaH Where we have the type-7 {-taH} being preceded by the type-8 {-neS}. Of course, they're on different words, but neverthless the "feel" I always got from the {rIntaH} was that it is a member of the type-7 verb suffix family. ~ Qa'yIn