[tlhIngan Hol] jIbogh vs jIboghpu' and a pizza

[SuStel]

On 12/22/2018 12:20 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>> 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'}

Yes. TKD does not exclude *-pu'* being used with intention. TKD also says,

    The suffix {-taH} <continuous> can be used whether there is a know
    goal or not. {-lI',} on the other hand, can be used only when there
    is an implied goal. It is possible to consider {-lI'} a <continuous>
    counterpart of {-ta',} and {-taH} a <continuous> counterpart of {-pu'.}

As *-pu'* is the counterpart of the continuous suffix that can be used 
whether there is a known goal or not, it follows that *-pu'* can be used 
whether there is an intention or not. Combine this with the fact that 
TKD mentions not a whiff of anything about *-pu'* not allowed when there 
is intention, and you must come to the conclusion that *-pu'* is neutral 
as to intention.

And then there are sentences like *qaja'pu'* /I told you/ (surely, I 
told you intentionally... this line comes from Kruge who makes a big 
point about his intentions), *nuHotlhpu''a'*/Have they scanned us? /(Are 
you suggesting they scanned us by accident?), and *SutlhtaHvIS chaH 
DIHIvpu'*/While they were negotiating, we attacked them/ (was our attack 
unintentional?). Okrand is quite happy to use *-pu'* where intention is 
obviously implied.

Therefore, suggesting that *-pu'* implies lack of intention cannot be 
correct.


> - 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'.}

And there's nothing wrong with using *-ta'* here. But you didn't say 
using *-ta'* would be a nice way to express this; you said "*-pu'* 
always has the notion that it just happened." That's not true.


> 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"

This is the reverse of the point you're trying to make. It says if the 
action is not intended, you can't use *-ta'.* It doesn't say if the 
action is intended, you can't — or even shouldn't — use *-pu'.*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20181222/b4df83b1/attachment-0016.htm>