There was a discussion on Facebook about whether -lI' needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think.

The question: does the verb suffix -lI' imply that an agent intentionally set up an end to a process?

The arguments in favor:

• TKD p. 43 says "-lI', on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal." If something has a goal, someone must have set the process in motion toward that goal.
• There are no canonical examples of -lI' being used where an agent hasn't set the process in motion toward the goal.
• TKD p. 43 says "It is possible to consider -lI' a continuous counterpart of -ta', and -taH a continuous counterpart of -pu'." The difference between -pu' and -ta' is that the latter implies intentionality, so the difference between -taH and -lI' is also that the latter implies intentionality.
  

The arguments against:

• TKD p. 42 says "Unlike -taH, however, -lI' implies that the activity has a known goal or a definite stopping point." A definite stopping point is mentioned as an alternative to a known goal, and such does not imply intentional agency.
• The example of vIlI'lI' on TKD p. 42 says "This word implies that data are in the process of being transmitted, but that there is a finite amount of data, so there will be a definite end to the transmission." This explanation does not reference the transmitter's goal in sending data, only the known end of transmission when there is no more data. The sender may have had a goal, but the explanation this word doesn't mention that.
• There are so few canonical examples of -lI' that lacking examples of non-intentional progress is not surprising.
  

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.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name