[tlhIngan Hol] {-pu'} vs {-ta'} on verbs of speech

[SuStel]

On 4/20/2020 11:45 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> Am 20.04.2020 um 14:55 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
>> With the exception of the three cases already mentioned, people talk
>> intentionally. They set out to talk, and then do so.
>
> Well, based on that logic, almost everything is done intentionally.
>
> But here's an interesting counter example from canon: In Star Trek 3,
> Kruge yelled at his gunner {qaja'pu': jonta' neH} "I told you: only the
> engine!"
>
> This is repeated in TKD:
>
> <<<
> This suffix indicates that an action is completed. It is often
> translated by the English present perfect ("have done something").
>
>     {Daleghpu'} "you have seen it" ({legh} "see")
>     {vIneHpu'} "I wanted them" ({neH} "want")
>     {qaja'pu'} "I told you" ({ja'} "tell")
> >>>
>
> So it is possible to have an accomplished saying that was obviously
> intentionally, but yet not as an accomplished deliberately undertaken
> action.

Kruge's quotation does not prove that. The use of *-ta'* instead of 
*-pu'* is always optional, even if the subject set out to accomplish the 
action and did it. When Kruge says *qaja'pu' jonta' neH,* we don't know 
if he doesn't think *-ta'* is correct here or if he's just optionally 
not using *-ta'.* Or if he even cares.


> The difference is that you can of course speak intentionally, but you
> can speak without planning to say something, that's why -pu' is used
> instead of -ta'.

Or you simply don't intend to express the intention behind a completed 
action. *qaja'ta'*/I told you, and I accomplished my intention; 
/*qaja'pu'*/I told you, but I'm not saying whether I set out to 
accomplish it or not./

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200420/157c37bc/attachment.htm>