Without going too much into your asked question, I'd like to note that you should not focus too much on the "intention" meaning of those suffixes. I know you don't like the suggestion of "rephrasing", but we have the words {chIch} "intentionally" and {bong} "accidentally" for some reason. I imagine you have thought about a dialogue like this: {vIHoHpu'} - I killed him. {DaHoHta''a'?} - Did you intentionally kill him? {ghobe'. vIHoHta'be'.} - No, I did not kill him on purpose. Based on the given meanings of those suffixs, it somehow makes sense, but I wouldn't say it that way. I think it does not fulfill the true meaning of those suffixes. Now, back to the other question of the word order ta'be/be'ta': It is ambiguous in English as well: "I did not hit you on purpose." = "It hit you, but I did not intend to." or: "I paid much attention not hitting you, so I did not hit you. And that was on purpose. (i.e. I missed the goal on purpose)" Okay, back to the original question: I understand {qaqIpta'be'} as negating the action {qIp}. So both "I did not hit you" and "I tried to hit you, but it didn't work". Remember the canon example from TKD: {vIta'pu'be'} "I didn't do it" 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. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Type7VerbSuffixes