<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/22/2018 12:20 PM, Lieven L.
Litaer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:67967fdc-4be8-4c99-4832-948dc7b5558b@gmx.de">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">On 12/22/2018
10:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Surely, and here
I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that implies
intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just
happened.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Am 22.12.2018 um 17:20 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">*-pu'* is neutral
as to intention. You might have intended it, or you might not
have.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't agree, at least not interely. I see your point, but you
cannot say that {-pu'} is always absolutely neutral to intention.
<br>
<br>
While {-ta'} is explained to be used as a intention, TKD says that
if there was no intention, {-pu'} is used.
<br>
<br>
So, yes, TKD does not exclude {-pu'} being used WITH intention,
but as it can have the notion of NO intention, the distinction can
be made by choosing {-ta'}</blockquote>
<p>Yes. TKD does not exclude <b>-pu'</b> being used with intention.
TKD also says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The suffix {-taH} <continuous> can be used whether there
is a know goal or not. {-lI',} on the other hand, can be used
only when there is an implied goal. It is possible to consider
{-lI'} a <continuous> counterpart of {-ta',} and {-taH} a
<continuous> counterpart of {-pu'.}</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As <b>-pu'</b> is the counterpart of the continuous suffix that
can be used whether there is a known goal or not, it follows that
<b>-pu'</b> can be used whether there is an intention or not.
Combine this with the fact that TKD mentions not a whiff of
anything about <b>-pu'</b> not allowed when there is intention,
and you must come to the conclusion that <b>-pu'</b> is neutral
as to intention.</p>
<p>And then there are sentences like <b>qaja'pu'</b> <i>I told you</i>
(surely, I told you intentionally... this line comes from Kruge
who makes a big point about his intentions), <b>nuHotlhpu''a'</b><i>
Have they scanned us? </i>(Are you suggesting they scanned us
by accident?), and <b>SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'</b><i> While they
were negotiating, we attacked them</i> (was our attack
unintentional?). Okrand is quite happy to use <b>-pu'</b> where
intention is obviously implied.</p>
<p>Therefore, suggesting that <b>-pu'</b> implies lack of intention
cannot be correct.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:67967fdc-4be8-4c99-4832-948dc7b5558b@gmx.de"> - which is
surely what mayqel was talking about: "I never asked you" really
sounds like "it was my intention not to ask you, and I have
intentionally achieved not asking you: {not qaghelta'.}
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>And there's nothing wrong with using <b>-ta'</b> here. But you
didn't say using <b>-ta'</b> would be a nice way to express this;
you said "<b>-pu'</b> always has the notion that it just
happened." That's not true.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:67967fdc-4be8-4c99-4832-948dc7b5558b@gmx.de">
TKD 4.2.7:
<br>
<br>
{luHoHta'} "they have killed him/her" ({HoH} "kill")
<br>
<br>
[...] sentence above could not be used if the killing were the
result of a general attack not intended to kill a specific person
or if the killing were an accident. In such cases, {-pu'} would be
used:
<br>
<br>
{luHoHpu'} "they have killed him/her"</blockquote>
<p>This is the reverse of the point you're trying to make. It says
if the action is not intended, you can't use <b>-ta'.</b> It
doesn't say if the action is intended, you can't — or even
shouldn't — use <b>-pu'.</b><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>