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

[SuStel]

On 4/12/2020 6:26 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> And to avoid ambiguity, I'd say it the same way I did in English:
> {qaqIpbe' chIch 'e' vIchav}
> or
> {qaqIpbe' 'e' vIHech}
>
> I thought about adding {-ta'} here, because it's an accomplished mission
> with purpose, but it then reminded me that {-ta'} is overly mis-used as
> tense. {qaqIpbe'} does not need tense when context is clear, and {chIch}
> adds the purpose. 

You need to add the *ta': qaqIpta'be' 'e' vIHech.* You intended to have 
not hit me. You're looking back on a hypothetical completed act of not 
hitting, and you're saying that's what you intended. This is exactly 
parallel to TKD's *yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh*/I saw him/her hit the 
officers./ "Note that the verb in the second sentence, *vIlegh*/I see 
it,/ is neutral as to time. The past tense of the translation /(I 
saw...)/ comes from the verb in the first sentence, *qIppu'*/he/she hit 
him/her/ (*-pu'*/perfective/)."

The thing about *-ta'* is that the intentionality of it is just a 
connotation of its perfectiveness. The primary meaning of *-ta'* is the 
same as the meaning of *-pu'.* It just has an added connotation of 
intentionality or accomplishment. You can't separate these two meanings. 
If you negate *-ta',* you're negating the accomplishment, not the 
intentionality.

*qaqIpta'* does not equal *chIch qaqIp.* One is perfective, the other is 
not.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200412/e1a1c493/attachment-0016.htm>