[tlhIngan Hol] placement of {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}

[mayqel qunen'oS]

De'vID:
> Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'},
> why would you expect it to work any differently with respect to {-be'}?

Saying {jISopbe'ta'}, gives me the impression that "my purpose was not
to eat, and I accomplished not to eat". I *feel* the {-be'} acting
solely on the {jISop} and then the {-ta'} modifying the entire
{jISopbe'}

Saying {jISopta'be'} gives me the impression that "my purpose was to
eat, but intentionally I didn't achieve this purpose". Here, I *feel*
the {-be'} acting solely on the {-ta'}, and then the combined
{-ta'be'} acting on the {jISop}

I know that the above explanations probably don't make no sense, but I
can't describe it any better.

Now, perhaps you'll wonder why I don't *feel* that way for the
{-be'pu'} vs {-pu'be'}. I don't know.. Perhaps, it's the
"intentionality" expressed by the {-ta'} which @!#! me up..

Anyways, since we have Ca'Non showing the use of {-ta'be'}, then my
problem is solved.

- m. qunen'oS