<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>There was a discussion on Facebook about whether <b>-lI'</b>
needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other
list members think.</p>
<p>The question: does the verb suffix <b>-lI'</b> imply that an
agent intentionally set up an end to a process?</p>
<p>The arguments in favor:</p>
<ul>
<li>TKD p. 43 says "<b>-lI'</b>, on the other hand, can be used
only when there is an implied goal." If something has a goal,
someone must have set the process in motion toward that goal.</li>
<li>There are no canonical examples of <b>-lI'</b> being used
where an agent hasn't set the process in motion toward the goal.</li>
<li>TKD p. 43 says "It is possible to consider <b>-lI'</b> a <i>continuous</i>
counterpart of <b>-ta',</b> and <b>-taH</b> a <i>continuous</i>
counterpart of <b>-pu'.</b>" The difference between <b>-pu'</b>
and <b>-ta'</b> is that the latter implies intentionality, so
the difference between <b>-taH</b> and <b>-lI'</b> is also
that the latter implies intentionality.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The arguments against:</p>
<ul>
<li>TKD p. 42 says "Unlike <b>-taH,</b> however, <b>-lI'</b>
implies that the activity has a known goal or a definite
stopping point." A definite stopping point is mentioned as an
alternative to a known goal, and such does not imply intentional
agency.</li>
<li>The example of <b>vIlI'lI'</b> on TKD p. 42 says "This word
implies that data are in the process of being transmitted, but
that there is a finite amount of data, so there will be a
definite end to the transmission." This explanation does not
reference the transmitter's goal in sending data, only the known
end of transmission when there is no more data. The sender may
have had a goal, but the explanation this word doesn't mention
that.</li>
<li>There are so few canonical examples of <b>-lI'</b> that
lacking examples of non-intentional progress is not surprising.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The arguments in favor say that a sentence like <b>pumlI' nagh</b>
to refer to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a
landslide, is ungrammatical.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>