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

[Will Martin]

As SuStel has suggested in the past, {-be’} doesn’t exclusively negate the single affix it follows. It negates the whole verb combined with any affixes between the verb and {-be’}.

I agree that {jISopbe’ta’} clearly means that I intended to not eat, and I accomplished the goal of not eating. The time span during which one evaluates whether or not I accomplish this goal is complete, and I still haven’t eaten.

If the time span one might consider to include all the time my goal was to not eat was not yet complete, then this statement would be a lie, because I will not have completed the mission. I will have merely progressed toward its completion, but I still would have time to go before I can claim my achievement.

I disagree with your interpretation that {jISopta’be’} implies that I intended to not accomplish the goal of eating. It just means “I did not accomplish eating.” The implication is that since I’m viewing the act of eating as an accomplishment, then most likely, my intent is to eat. The ambiguity here is, which of the following is true?:

1. The time span during which one judges whether or not I have accomplished the goal is completed, and I have not accomplished that goal, so I have failed my mission.

2. The time span during which one judges whether or not I have accomplished the goal is not yet complete, so I still could eat and my goal would then be accomplished, but so far, the mission is incomplete.

The first option makes sense in the context of you witnessing me leaving a social event as they are closing down everything, and I look dejected, hungry, and perhaps a bit angry at myself, and/or the party, because I got here too late, or they ended the party too early.

The second option makes sense in the context of responding to the Southern question famous for compressing four syllables into two: “Jeet Jet?” (Did you eat, yet?) I answer {jISopta’be’} and you invite me in for a meal. {DaH, choSopmoHlaHta’!}

Aaaand we can argue over whether you have accomplished causing me to be able to eat, or whether you have caused me to accomplish being able to eat, because that could mean either one.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Sep 18, 2019, at 12:30 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190918/4e6858e7/attachment-0002.htm>