On 1/23/2020 9:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
The way I understand {rIntaH}, it is to be used with action verbs e.g. kill, attack, try, hunt, etc.
There's no limitation on which type of verb you can use it with. *jIQuch rIntaH. */I was happy (but that happiness is over forever)./
And even then, it is *only* to be used, when the action is intentional.
Meaning, that we *can* say {SuvwI' luHoH rIntaH jaghpu'}, but we *cannot* say {loD luHoH rIntaH pumpu'bogh naghmey} "the rocks which fell killed the man".
Correct. Note, first, that the sentence you've given actually says /The fallen rocks kill the warrior,/ as if rocks which have already fallen (you used *-pu',* which means the falling is completed) now somehow kill a man (lacking aspect, the killing is not complete and not continuous). That is, according to the grammar of your sentence, the falling was finished before the killing happened. If you want the rockfall to be the reason for the death, you need to say either *SuvwI' luHoH pumbogh naghmey*/The rocks that fall kill the warrior/ (the speaker is stating the sentence from the moment of the rockfall and death) or *SuvwI' luHoHpu' pumpu'bogh naghmey*/The rocks that fell killed the warrior/ (the speaker is stating the sentence from a time after the rockfall and death, when both events are completed). If you want the sense of finality of *rIntaH* without the intentionality of *-ta',* consider an idiom. *SuvwI' luHoHpu' pumpu'bogh naghmey; bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'.*/The rocks that fell killed the warrior; there's no return from that./ The idiom literally means, of course, /The sword is in the ocean./
However, recently I begun to wonder, whether one could use {rIntaH} with be-verbs.
For example, could we say something like the following ?
taQ rIntaH DevwI' the leader is strange
This means /The leader was strange (but that condition is over forever)./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name