<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 9/18/2019 6:03 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ED58C429-FB34-4CD7-B0AE-8C61BC778113@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">As SuStel has suggested in the past, {-be’} doesn’t
exclusively negate the single affix it follows. It negates the
whole verb combined with any affixes between the verb and
{-be’}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What I have suggested is that the scope of <b>-be'</b> is not
necessarily just the element it immediately follows. I do not
claim there is a specific scope beyond that.</p>
<p>What we observe about <b>-be'</b> is that it can apply to just
the immediately preceding element, or it can apply to more than
that.</p>
<p><b>Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'</b><i> Eat everything or
you will die without honor.</i> (PK)</p>
<p>This was clearly invented before Okrand decided you could put <b>-Ha'</b>
on adverbials. By a strict TKD reading, <b>batlh bIHeghbe'</b>
means you will not die, and that not dying will be honorable. But
actually the <b>-be'</b> is being applied either to just the
adverbial <i>(not-honorably you will die) </i>or the entire
phrase preceding it <i>(it is not the case that you will die
honorably).</i> The scope of <b>-be'</b> here is not limited to
the elements between the verb root and the <b>-be'.</b> <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ED58C429-FB34-4CD7-B0AE-8C61BC778113@mac.com">
<div class="">I agree that {jISopbe’ta’} clearly means that I
intended to not eat, and I accomplished the goal of not eating.
The time span during which one evaluates whether or not I
accomplish this goal is complete, and I still haven’t eaten.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem with the general analysis so far is that <b>-ta'</b>
doesn't mean <i>intended to do something;</i> it means <i>perfective,</i>
and just carries an additional connotation of having intended to
do it. The primary job is to make the verb perfective.</p>
<p><b>jISopbe'ta'</b> means I set out not to eat and did not, in
fact, eat. It is looking back at my not eating and reporting that
I completed it.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ED58C429-FB34-4CD7-B0AE-8C61BC778113@mac.com">I disagree
with your interpretation that {jISopta’be’} implies that I
intended to not accomplish the goal of eating. It just means “I
did not accomplish eating.†The implication is that since I’m
viewing the act of eating as an accomplishment, then most likely,
my intent is to eat.</blockquote>
<p>The expressed intent is to not eat. The goal that was
accomplished was not eating.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ED58C429-FB34-4CD7-B0AE-8C61BC778113@mac.com">The second
option makes sense in the context of responding to the Southern
question famous for compressing four syllables into two: “Jeet
Jet?†(Did you eat, yet?)
</blockquote>
<p>To which the proper answer is "No, Jew?"<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>