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

[De'vID]

On 26 February 2017 at 10:45, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> But I do understand the confusion. Since {-ta'} is described as a non
> continuous counterpart to {-lI'}, there seems to be some intention. Saying
> {pumta' nagh} sounds like the stone has fallen by its own will.

{-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.

-- 
De'vID