On 9/18/2019 6:03 PM, Will Martin wrote:
As SuStel has suggested in the past, {-be’} doesn’t exclusively negate the single affix it follows. It negates the whole verb combined with any affixes between the verb and {-be’}.
What I have suggested is that the scope of *-be'* is not necessarily just the element it immediately follows. I do not claim there is a specific scope beyond that. What we observe about *-be'* is that it can apply to just the immediately preceding element, or it can apply to more than that. *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'*/Eat everything or you will die without honor./ (PK) This was clearly invented before Okrand decided you could put *-Ha'* on adverbials. By a strict TKD reading, *batlh bIHeghbe'* means you will not die, and that not dying will be honorable. But actually the *-be'* is being applied either to just the adverbial /(not-honorably you will die) /or the entire phrase preceding it /(it is not the case that you will die honorably)./ The scope of *-be'* here is not limited to the elements between the verb root and the *-be'.*
I agree that {jISopbe’ta’} clearly means that I intended to not eat, and I accomplished the goal of not eating. The time span during which one evaluates whether or not I accomplish this goal is complete, and I still haven’t eaten.
The problem with the general analysis so far is that *-ta'* doesn't mean /intended to do something;/ it means /perfective,/ and just carries an additional connotation of having intended to do it. The primary job is to make the verb perfective. *jISopbe'ta'* means I set out not to eat and did not, in fact, eat. It is looking back at my not eating and reporting that I completed it.
I disagree with your interpretation that {jISopta’be’} implies that I intended to not accomplish the goal of eating. It just means “I did not accomplish eating.” The implication is that since I’m viewing the act of eating as an accomplishment, then most likely, my intent is to eat.
The expressed intent is to not eat. The goal that was accomplished was not eating.
The second option makes sense in the context of responding to the Southern question famous for compressing four syllables into two: “Jeet Jet?” (Did you eat, yet?)
To which the proper answer is "No, Jew?" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name