jIH:
Meaning that "no intentional hitting took place", and not "intentionally, no hitting took place"; now, whether this would leave room for interpretation that "unintentional hitting could have taken place", which was the original question of this thread, is another story. De'vID: No, it actually does mean "no hitting took place". The meanings of {-pu'be'} and {-ta'be'} are the same, except that the latter implies the (in)action was intentional.
ok, I understand that. jIH:
The only way I can see the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning being produced is by writing {qaqIpbe'ta'}: De'vID: That means "I accomplished not hitting you", which is different from "I did not hit you, on purpose" (though the difference is very subtle).
I understand this too. So far so good. De'vID:
If {qaqIpta'} is "I hit you (and I did it deliberately)", then {qaqIpta'be'} is "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)". Arguably, it's ambiguous whether the meaning is "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you" or "I intended to hit you, but did not hit you". Perhaps *that* distinction can be indicated by context. But the primary action of the negation is to negate the completion or accomplishment, not the intention.
ok, I understand this, but here is my problem: I want to say to say "I did not hit you"; no hitting has taken place, and the hitting which hasn't taken place is of the intentional kind. What I mean is: "I didn't (set out to hit you and subsequently hit you)". How do I say it ? If I write {qaqIpta'be'}, then it means "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately". If I write {qaqIppu'be'}, then this includes the meaning of "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately", but I don't know of it includes too the meaning which I want to express. And if I write {chIch qaqIppu'be'}, then seeming/apparently it means "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you". ~ mayqel qunen'oS