The following could best be described as my gut feeling on the issue, as I certainly didn't look up any rules beyond re-reading what Klingonska.org says about -lI' and -taH . This is what my instinct tells me from my limited experience with klingon. Duj tIvoqtaH after all :-)

The non-restrictive argument would say there is no difference: the agent's intentions are not described by *-lI',* the speaker is merely describing an action progressing toward a known stopping point. A rock pushed off a cliff by a gust of wind could be said to be *pumlI'* because it is making progress toward the known stopping point of the ground.

I'm with that side. If there is a *known* ground below, the stone can only pumlI' . Of course if you don't know how deep it is, and can't see the ground, then pumtaH would be fine - from your point of view the stone might just as well fall forever. But if we can see the ground and you say "pumtaH" to me, I'd expect the stone to fall through the earth and continue to fall until something intentionally blocks its way. Hm. Unless you're talking about the stone at this moment right now. Then -taH would be fitting, but you'd not be talking about the whole "stone drops down" but "stone is currently on the way down" situation. Kind of like knowing the speed of the stone or it's exact location. Christoph ---------------------------------------------- Message: 7 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:19:33 -0500 From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not? Message-ID: <58B31C35.4080000@trimboli.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" On 2/26/2017 12:35 PM, Lieven wrote:

Would there be a difference between a stone falling due to the wind moving it and my intentionally making it drop?

Unless you are intentionally personifying the wind and giving it an objective of making the stone hit the ground, the restrictive argument would say yes, there is a difference: if you dropped the stone intending that its goal is the ground you could say *pumlI'* (or *pumtaH*); if the stone fell off a cliff because of a gust of wind, you could only say *pumtaH. * The non-restrictive argument would say there is no difference: the agent's intentions are not described by *-lI',* the speaker is merely describing an action progressing toward a known stopping point. A rock pushed off a cliff by a gust of wind could be said to be *pumlI'* because it is making progress toward the known stopping point of the ground. -- SuStel http://www.trimboli.name/