De'vID:
Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'}, why would you expect it to work any differently with respect to {-be'}?
Saying {jISopbe'ta'}, gives me the impression that "my purpose was not to eat, and I accomplished not to eat". I *feel* the {-be'} acting solely on the {jISop} and then the {-ta'} modifying the entire {jISopbe'} Saying {jISopta'be'} gives me the impression that "my purpose was to eat, but intentionally I didn't achieve this purpose". Here, I *feel* the {-be'} acting solely on the {-ta'}, and then the combined {-ta'be'} acting on the {jISop} I know that the above explanations probably don't make no sense, but I can't describe it any better. Now, perhaps you'll wonder why I don't *feel* that way for the {-be'pu'} vs {-pu'be'}. I don't know.. Perhaps, it's the "intentionality" expressed by the {-ta'} which @!#! me up.. Anyways, since we have Ca'Non showing the use of {-ta'be'}, then my problem is solved. - m. qunen'oS