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