[tlhIngan Hol] jIbogh vs jIboghpu' and a pizza

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Sat Dec 22 09:20:20 PST 2018

> On 12/22/2018 10:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>> Surely, and here I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that 
>> implies intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just 
>> happened.

Am 22.12.2018 um 17:20 schrieb SuStel:
> *-pu'* is neutral as to intention. You might have intended it, or you 
> might not have.

I don't agree, at least not interely. I see your point, but you cannot 
say that {-pu'} is always absolutely neutral to intention.

While {-ta'} is explained to be used as a intention, TKD says that if 
there was no intention, {-pu'} is used.

So, yes, TKD does not exclude {-pu'} being used WITH intention, but as 
it can have the notion of NO intention, the distinction can be made by 
choosing {-ta'} - which is surely what mayqel was talking about: "I 
never asked you" really sounds like "it was my intention not to ask you, 
and I have intentionally achieved not asking you: {not qaghelta'.}

TKD 4.2.7:

{luHoHta'} "they have killed him/her" ({HoH} "kill")

[...] sentence above could not be used if the killing were the result of 
a general attack not intended to kill a specific person or if the 
killing were an accident. In such cases, {-pu'} would be used:

{luHoHpu'} "they have killed him/her"

Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list