The discussion of {rIntaH} from TKD:

The meaning of {-ta'} can also be indicated syntactically. That is, instead of using the suffix {-ta',} a special verbal construction can follow the verb which indicates the accomplished action. This special verb is {rIn} <be finished, accomplished,> and in this usage it always takes the suffix {-taH} <continuous> (see below) and the third-person pronominal prefix (0).

The discussion of {qar'a'} from TKDa:

This word either follows the verb or else comes at the end of the sentence. Both of the following are correct:

{De' Sov qar'a' HoD} {De' Sov HoD qar'a'} <The captain knows the information, right?> ({De'} <information,> {Sov} <he/she knows it,> {HoD} <captain>)

MO uses "follow the verb" to refer to the placement of both constructions. In the {qar'a'} example {De' Sov qar'a' HoD}, the special construction described as following the verb comes before the explicit subject {HoD}. It seems reasonable to assume that when MO speaks of a special verb construction following the verb, he means right after the verb and before the subject. {rIntaH} is a special verb construction that follows the verb, so I conclude it would go before the subject: {qa'vam De' je' rIntaH valQIS.} On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:27 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/24/2020 9:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

Personally, I'd prefer placing it right after the noun, because it**feels** more direct, and the meaning of the sentence becomes immediately clearer, especially in cases where we don't have a "simple" subject, but a more "complex" one, as for instance noun-noun constructions, {-meH}ed nouns, {-bogh}ed nouns, or even an entire {-bogh} phrase with it's own subject and object.

Now, one could perhaps argue that klingons wouldn't use "complex" subjects..

Except we see plenty of such subjects. Two examples:

- Noun-noun, relative clause with subject and object, apposition, title: *yejquv DevwI' moj ghawran 'e' wuqta' **cho' 'oDwI' Dapu'bogh janluq pIqarD HoD* (Skybox S25) - Purpose clause: *jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu' qaSuchmeH 'eb* (newsgroup)

If one argues that Klingons don't use these constructions in subjects, one is wrong.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

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

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:29 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

‘op Hu’ choH yaHwIj Daq. DaH ngaSwI’meyDaq bIHtaH Hoch paqwIj. ngoDlIj vI’ollaHbe’. TKD vItu’DI’ vI’ol vIneH. nav yIngu’.

{rIntaH} bop tenwal loSmaH wa'. {qar'a'} bop tenwal wa'vatlh SochmaH Hut.

On 1/24/2020 11:54 AM, De'vID wrote:

Also, while we don't have any canon examples from the 23rd or 24th century, at least in Shex'pir's time, {rIntaH} followed the verb and came before the subject: {'ej, pIvmo', wovqu'taHvIS wuqbogh qab, 'oH ropmoH rIntaH Sotbogh qech ghom Hurgh.}

In the inferior Federation Standard forgery, the line reads thus: "And thus the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought."

From the famous soliloquy in Hamlet, of course.

/Hamlet /is, of course, not canon. Also, in its own fiction it's a "restored" version, back-translated from the Federation propaganda version in English. It does not claim to be the original text or to represent the actual speech of Klingons. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:03 PM Alan Anderson <qunchuy@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.