Am 25.02.2017 um 20:36 schrieb SuStel:
There was a discussion on Facebook about whether *-lI'* needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think.
Interesting question. The more I think about this, the more complicated it gets. My first reaction to your question is NO. When I send data, of course I know that it will be finished soon, but it is not my personal "intention" to have it finished. So far the short answer. ------- But I do understand the confusion. Since {-ta'} is described as a non continuous counterpart to {-lI'}, there seems to be some intention. Saying {pumta' nagh} sounds like the stone has fallen by its own will. This shifts the question a bit to a different topic: Can {-ta'} and {-lI'} be used with non-living beings? That's what the intentionality implies. Only living beings can do something with an intention. Generally spoken, I would suggest to avoid aspect suffixes, or at least not to use them too often. When you just say {pum nagh} the meaning is quite the same. It's falling, and it certainly will stop. For instance, see the word {Dor} "end": We all know that a period of time will end somewhere, but you do not say {DorlI' jaj}.
The arguments in favor say that a sentence like *pumlI' nagh* to refer to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a landslide, is ungrammatical.
I would not be so strict to say that it is ungrammatical, because technically spoken (TKD) you may add it to the verb, but I would wonder if it was the stone's decision to do it: TKD says: {-ta'} is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it. When I take this literally, {pumta' nagh} is nonsense. Since {-lI'} is the continous counterpart of {-ta'}, {pumlI' nagh} is nonsense as well. quod erat demonstrandum. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net