On 12/22/2018 12:20 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
On 12/22/2018 10:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Surely, and here I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that implies intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just happened.
Am 22.12.2018 um 17:20 schrieb SuStel:
*-pu'* is neutral as to intention. You might have intended it, or you might not have.
I don't agree, at least not interely. I see your point, but you cannot say that {-pu'} is always absolutely neutral to intention.
While {-ta'} is explained to be used as a intention, TKD says that if there was no intention, {-pu'} is used.
So, yes, TKD does not exclude {-pu'} being used WITH intention, but as it can have the notion of NO intention, the distinction can be made by choosing {-ta'}
Yes. TKD does not exclude *-pu'* being used with intention. TKD also says, The suffix {-taH} <continuous> can be used whether there is a know goal or not. {-lI',} on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal. It is possible to consider {-lI'} a <continuous> counterpart of {-ta',} and {-taH} a <continuous> counterpart of {-pu'.} As *-pu'* is the counterpart of the continuous suffix that can be used whether there is a known goal or not, it follows that *-pu'* can be used whether there is an intention or not. Combine this with the fact that TKD mentions not a whiff of anything about *-pu'* not allowed when there is intention, and you must come to the conclusion that *-pu'* is neutral as to intention. And then there are sentences like *qaja'pu'* /I told you/ (surely, I told you intentionally... this line comes from Kruge who makes a big point about his intentions), *nuHotlhpu''a'*/Have they scanned us? /(Are you suggesting they scanned us by accident?), and *SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'*/While they were negotiating, we attacked them/ (was our attack unintentional?). Okrand is quite happy to use *-pu'* where intention is obviously implied. Therefore, suggesting that *-pu'* implies lack of intention cannot be correct.
- which is surely what mayqel was talking about: "I never asked you" really sounds like "it was my intention not to ask you, and I have intentionally achieved not asking you: {not qaghelta'.}
And there's nothing wrong with using *-ta'* here. But you didn't say using *-ta'* would be a nice way to express this; you said "*-pu'* always has the notion that it just happened." That's not true.
TKD 4.2.7:
{luHoHta'} "they have killed him/her" ({HoH} "kill")
[...] sentence above could not be used if the killing were the result of a general attack not intended to kill a specific person or if the killing were an accident. In such cases, {-pu'} would be used:
{luHoHpu'} "they have killed him/her"
This is the reverse of the point you're trying to make. It says if the action is not intended, you can't use *-ta'.* It doesn't say if the action is intended, you can't — or even shouldn't — use *-pu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name