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

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Thu Apr 16 07:54:07 PDT 2020


You seem to be ignoring the option of saying {qaqIpbe’ta’} and treating that as if it were synonymous with {qaqIpta’be’}.

The former definitely means that I accomplished not hitting you. I had a goal of not hitting you and I achieved it. Maybe you were acting like the kind of jerk that would have pushed a less patient man over the threshold, but I made a promise not to hit you (to myself or someone else), and I kept it.

{qaqIpta’be’} suggests that both the fact of hitting you and the goal of hitting you didn’t happen. Essentially, the goal of hitting you was not achieved. Context might make it more conclusive whether any hitting happened or not, but definitely there was a goal and it wasn’t achieved.

Maybe I swung at you, but you ducked and I lightly grazed you and now you are whining about it, and I’m explaining that that little tap was nothing significant. It shouldn’t even count as hitting you. It was nothing I’d brag about and nothing you should complain about.

Or maybe I just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Next time I see you, I intend to punch your lights out, but I haven’t seen you since I saw your message that triggered my new goal of placing my fist two inches past the boundary that is your face.

As always, context clarifies the details.

Does this help?

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 9:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> jIH:
>> Meaning that "no intentional hitting took place", and not
>> "intentionally, no hitting took place"; now, whether this would leave
>> room for interpretation that "unintentional hitting could have taken
>> place", which was the original question of this thread, is another
>> story.
> De'vID:
>> No, it actually does mean "no hitting took place". The meanings of {-pu'be'} and
>> {-ta'be'} are the same, except that the latter implies the (in)action was intentional.
> 
> ok, I understand that.
> 
> jIH:
>> The only way I can see the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning
>> being produced is by writing {qaqIpbe'ta'}:
> De'vID:
>> That means "I accomplished not hitting you", which is different from
>> "I did not hit you, on purpose" (though the difference is very subtle).
> 
> I understand this too. So far so good.
> 
> De'vID:
>> If {qaqIpta'} is "I hit you (and I did it deliberately)", then {qaqIpta'be'} is
>> "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)". Arguably, it's ambiguous whether
>> the meaning is "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you" or "I intended
>> to hit you, but did not hit you". Perhaps *that* distinction can be indicated by
>> context. But the primary action of the negation is to negate the completion or
>> accomplishment, not the intention.
> 
> ok, I understand this, but here is my problem:
> 
> I want to say to say "I did not hit you"; no hitting has taken place,
> and the hitting which hasn't taken place is of the intentional kind.
> What I mean is: "I didn't (set out to hit you and subsequently hit
> you)". How do I say it ?
> 
> If I write {qaqIpta'be'}, then it means "I did not hit you, and I did
> deliberately". If I write {qaqIppu'be'}, then this includes the
> meaning of "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately", but I don't
> know of it includes too the meaning which I want to express.
> 
> And if I write {chIch qaqIppu'be'}, then seeming/apparently it means
> "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you".
> 
> ~ mayqel 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/20200416/a7ca4556/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list