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

[SuStel]

On 9/18/2019 6:03 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> 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’}.

What I have suggested is that the scope of *-be'* is not necessarily 
just the element it immediately follows. I do not claim there is a 
specific scope beyond that.

What we observe about *-be'* is that it can apply to just the 
immediately preceding element, or it can apply to more than that.

*Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'*/Eat everything or you will die 
without honor./ (PK)

This was clearly invented before Okrand decided you could put *-Ha'* on 
adverbials. By a strict TKD reading, *batlh bIHeghbe'* means you will 
not die, and that not dying will be honorable. But actually the *-be'* 
is being applied either to just the adverbial /(not-honorably you will 
die) /or the entire phrase preceding it /(it is not the case that you 
will die honorably)./ The scope of *-be'* here is not limited to the 
elements between the verb root and the *-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.

The problem with the general analysis so far is that *-ta'* doesn't mean 
/intended to do something;/ it means /perfective,/ and just carries an 
additional connotation of having intended to do it. The primary job is 
to make the verb perfective.

*jISopbe'ta'* means I set out not to eat and did not, in fact, eat. It 
is looking back at my not eating and reporting that I completed it.


> 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 expressed intent is to not eat. The goal that was accomplished was 
not eating.


> 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?) 

To which the proper answer is "No, Jew?"

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190918/f0fb8efa/attachment-0015.htm>