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