[tlhIngan Hol] vIta'pu'be' vs vIta'be'pu'

[Felix Malmenbeck]

To me, the two represent two different things:

vIta'pu'be' - "I have not done it, ever (in the scope of time being considered)"


vIta'be'pu' - "there has been at least one instance of me *not* doing (in the scope of time being considered), but I'm not necessarily denying that there were also instances of me doing it"


For example:

qaStaHvIS DIS vorgh, jIroppu'be'. - "Last year, I wasn't ever sick."

qaStaHvIS DIS vorgh, jIropbe'pu'. - "Last year, I wasn't always sick."


The distinction becomes a bit clearer with -ta':


qaStaHvIS wa'Hu' ram Hoch, jIQongta'be'. - "I didn't manage to get any sleep last night."

qaStaHvIS wa'Hu' ram Hoch, jIQongbe'ta'. - "I was able to remain awake last night."


//loghaD


________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 13:39
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] vIta'pu'be' vs vIta'be'pu'

tkd has on p. 172, {vIta'pu'be'}.

I know, that the effect of the rover {-be'} can extend not only to whatever directly precedes it, but to the entire word.

Still, I wonder.. If instead of {vIta'pu'be'} for "I didn't do it", we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}, then would it be equally correct ?

~ nI'ghma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180309/441e59fb/attachment-0016.htm>