[tlhIngan Hol] does the {-ta'} leave room for interpretation for the {-pu'} ?

[De'vID]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 15:32, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> Suppose someone asks: {qatlh choqIppu'?}/{qatlh choqIppta'?}.
>
> Somehow, I get the impression that by answering {qaqIpta'be'}, this
> answer could be interpreted as "I hit you, but it wasn't on purpose."
>
> Somehow, I get the impression that by combining {-ta'} with {-be'},
> the listener could *still* understand that the action took place, but
> that it wasn't intentional.
>
> So, is this the case indeed? Does the {-ta'} leave room for
> interpretation for the {-pu'}?
>

According to TKD 4.2.7, "English translations seldom reveal the distinction
[between {-pu'} and {-ta'}]."

I think your understanding is backwards. I'd understand {qaqIpta'be'} as "I
didn't hit you", with the implication that I deliberately did not hit you.
The {-be'} negates the completion or accomplishment, not the intentionality.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200411/d30e73a1/attachment.htm>