[tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?

Lieven levinius at gmx.de
Mon Feb 27 05:41:47 PST 2017

Am 27.02.2017 um 12:10 schrieb De'vID:
>>> {-ta'} indicates intention behind the action, but it doesn't
>>> necessarily indicate intention on the part of the subject of the verb.
>>> {pumta' nagh} is fine, if someone pushed the stone intentionally.

> It's often overlooked that each section in TKD 4.2.X describes just
> who or what is affected by each type of suffix. For example, type 2
> describes "how much choice the subject has", while type 6 show "how
> sure the speaker is". Type 7 explicitly says the suffix is about "the
> action" of the verb.

It further says that the {-ta'} suffix "is used when an activity was 
deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to 
do something and in fact did it."

> {So'wI' chu'lu'ta'} is in TKD, and has an indefinite subject.

Yes, true, but still the indefinite /subject/ did this intentionally.
All the (few) canon examples I can find in TKD, TKW and Monopoly have 
the subject intenting/deciding to do something.

I have read all of chapter 4.2.7 carefully, and I think you can pin it 
down to two sorts of suffixes with two subclasses:

1) completed a) general / b) intentional (i.e. "deliberatly undertaken")
2) continous a) general / b) intentional (i.e. "known goal")

I certainly do know that we can never be 100% sure without help from 
Maltz or canon examples, but in this case, as long as we don't have 
better examples, I keep feeling that {Heghta'} only makes sense in the 
Heghbat Ritual.

Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list