<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2020 6:26 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:200e566a-120c-8fd1-1b74-45e126e854fd@gmx.de">And to
avoid ambiguity, I'd say it the same way I did in English:
<br>
{qaqIpbe' chIch 'e' vIchav}
<br>
or
<br>
{qaqIpbe' 'e' vIHech}
<br>
<br>
I thought about adding {-ta'} here, because it's an accomplished
mission
<br>
with purpose, but it then reminded me that {-ta'} is overly
mis-used as
<br>
tense. {qaqIpbe'} does not need tense when context is clear, and
{chIch}
<br>
adds the purpose.
</blockquote>
<p>You need to add the <b>ta': qaqIpta'be' 'e' vIHech.</b> 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 <b>yaS qIppu' 'e'
vIlegh</b><i> I saw him/her hit the officers.</i> "Note that the
verb in the second sentence, <b>vIlegh</b><i> I see it,</i> is
neutral as to time. The past tense of the translation <i>(I
saw...)</i> comes from the verb in the first sentence, <b>qIppu'</b><i>
he/she hit him/her</i> (<b>-pu'</b><i> perfective</i>)."</p>
<p>The thing about <b>-ta'</b> is that the intentionality of it is
just a connotation of its perfectiveness. The primary meaning of <b>-ta'</b>
is the same as the meaning of <b>-pu'.</b> It just has an added
connotation of intentionality or accomplishment. You can't
separate these two meanings. If you negate <b>-ta',</b> you're
negating the accomplishment, not the intentionality.</p>
<p><b>qaqIpta'</b> does not equal <b>chIch qaqIp.</b> One is
perfective, the other is not.<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>