does the {-ta'} leave room for interpretation for the {-pu'} ?
Suppose someone asks: {qatlh choqIppu'?}/{qatlh choqIppta'?}. Somehow, I get the impression that by answering {qaqIpta'be'}, this answer could be interpreted as "I hit you, but it wasn't on purpose." Somehow, I get the impression that by combining {-ta'} with {-be'}, the listener could *still* understand that the action took place, but that it wasn't intentional. So, is this the case indeed? Does the {-ta'} leave room for interpretation for the {-pu'}? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
I’m thinking maybe you are narrowing the interpretation of “accomplishment” a bit. If I say, {qaqIpta’be’}, while it’s possible I mean, “Sure, I hit you, but I didn’t intend to,” I could also mean, “You call that a hit? It’s nothing like the one I still intend to give you. Here. Hold this.” POW! My mission wasn’t accomplished with that first tap. This SECOND hit is the one that fulfilled my goal. It could be an insult, implying that hitting you is no accomplishment. Any crippled child could fearlessly hit YOU. You are a living punching bag. Nobody cuts a notch on their belt for hitting YOU. Anyone capable of standing near you and NOT hitting you is boring. Even the ghIlab ghewmey dive bomb you for sport. It could be an expression of pride. The way I hit, if I’d actually planned and executed a punch, you wouldn’t be talking right now. You’d be drooling, face down on the pavement with investigators drawing a white chalk line around you, taking photographs and putting up "Police Line: Do not cross” tape... Or it could be that I really did intend to hit you, but I missed. You were grazed, and yet you still whine about it. I’m a little ashamed of my inept attempt at punching your lights out. I could go on. The point is that all communication is incomplete. Context generally provides important detail missing from a simple sentence. No sentence means exactly one thing in all contexts. Often the grammatical choice between {-pu’} and {-ta’} gets its meaning from the context. Given the right context, what you say could be completely true. Just don’t assume that the statement has one universal truth it expresses by choosing between {-pu’} and {-ta’}.
On Apr 7, 2020, at 9:32 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose someone asks: {qatlh choqIppu'?}/{qatlh choqIppta'?}.
Somehow, I get the impression that by answering {qaqIpta'be'}, this answer could be interpreted as "I hit you, but it wasn't on purpose."
Somehow, I get the impression that by combining {-ta'} with {-be'}, the listener could *still* understand that the action took place, but that it wasn't intentional.
So, is this the case indeed? Does the {-ta'} leave room for interpretation for the {-pu'}?
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 15:32, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose someone asks: {qatlh choqIppu'?}/{qatlh choqIppta'?}.
Somehow, I get the impression that by answering {qaqIpta'be'}, this answer could be interpreted as "I hit you, but it wasn't on purpose."
Somehow, I get the impression that by combining {-ta'} with {-be'}, the listener could *still* understand that the action took place, but that it wasn't intentional.
So, is this the case indeed? Does the {-ta'} leave room for interpretation for the {-pu'}?
According to TKD 4.2.7, "English translations seldom reveal the distinction [between {-pu'} and {-ta'}]." I think your understanding is backwards. I'd understand {qaqIpta'be'} as "I didn't hit you", with the implication that I deliberately did not hit you. The {-be'} negates the completion or accomplishment, not the intentionality. -- De'vID
De'vID:
I'd understand {qaqIpta'be'} as "I didn't hit you", with the implication that I deliberately did not hit you. The {-be'} negates the completion or accomplishment, not the intentionality.
I'm afraid I can't understand that. Lets take things from the start, ignoring the initial question of this thread. qaqIpta' I set out to hit you and did it (qaqIpta')be' (I set out to hit you and did it)-not Meaning that "no intentional hitting took place", and not "intentionally, no hitting took place"; now, whether this would leave room for interpretation that "unintentional hitting could have taken place", which was the original question of this thread, is another story. The only way I can see the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning being produced is by writing {qaqIpbe'ta'}: qaqIpbe' I don't hit you (qaqIpbe')ta' I set out not to hit you and I accomplished it = I deliberately did not hit you Let alone the fact that there is another problem with interpreting the {qaqIpta'be'} as "I deliberately did not hit you"; doing so would call for the "deliberate action described by the {-ta'}" to be acting on the {-be'} which follows it. However, if we go here: https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_140624.html We will see that maltz has said: *** quote start *** "For the possessive suffixes, however, this doesn't work. {jaghna'lI'} means "definitely your enemy (and not your friend, etc.)." It doesn't specifically mean "definitely your enemy (and not mine)." He said if you want to emphasize the possessor, just give it extra stress when saying the word: {DujlIj} (or DujlIj or DujlIj or DujlIj or DujLIJ or however you want to transcribe it -- I'm not sure whether italics and bold and all of that will show up for you)." *** quote end *** Seemingly/apparently, suffixes can act only on the suffixes preceding them, and not on the suffixes following them, which would be necessary to happen for the {qaqIpta'be'} to be meaning "I deliberately did not hit you". On the other hand though, one *could* argue, that maltz talks about noun suffixes.. But still.. Now, don't misunderstand me; in no way am I saying that I'm correct in the way I understand this matter. Chances are that I'm wrong (as usual..). I'm just describing how I understand this, hoping that if indeed I'm wrong, someone will explain to me, what it is I'm actually failing to understand. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Thinking this further.. Even if we chose to interpret the qaqIpta'be' as qaqIp(ta'be'), i.e. the {-be'} acting on the {-ta'} and then their combined meaning acting on the verb, then again I don't see how we could have the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning. With the {-be'} acting solely on the {-ta'}, the meaning goes that "an action which would be intentional didn't happen", since the way I understand the "intentionality" of the {-ta'}, it is a concept coloring the verb and not the {-be'} which follows it. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Without going too much into your asked question, I'd like to note that you should not focus too much on the "intention" meaning of those suffixes. I know you don't like the suggestion of "rephrasing", but we have the words {chIch} "intentionally" and {bong} "accidentally" for some reason. I imagine you have thought about a dialogue like this: {vIHoHpu'} - I killed him. {DaHoHta''a'?} - Did you intentionally kill him? {ghobe'. vIHoHta'be'.} - No, I did not kill him on purpose. Based on the given meanings of those suffixs, it somehow makes sense, but I wouldn't say it that way. I think it does not fulfill the true meaning of those suffixes. Now, back to the other question of the word order ta'be/be'ta': It is ambiguous in English as well: "I did not hit you on purpose." = "It hit you, but I did not intend to." or: "I paid much attention not hitting you, so I did not hit you. And that was on purpose. (i.e. I missed the goal on purpose)" Okay, back to the original question: I understand {qaqIpta'be'} as negating the action {qIp}. So both "I did not hit you" and "I tried to hit you, but it didn't work". Remember the canon example from TKD: {vIta'pu'be'} "I didn't do it" And to avoid ambiguity, I'd say it the same way I did in English: {qaqIpbe' chIch 'e' vIchav} or {qaqIpbe' 'e' vIHech} I thought about adding {-ta'} here, because it's an accomplished mission with purpose, but it then reminded me that {-ta'} is overly mis-used as tense. {qaqIpbe'} does not need tense when context is clear, and {chIch} adds the purpose. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Type7VerbSuffixes
On 4/12/2020 6:26 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
And to avoid ambiguity, I'd say it the same way I did in English: {qaqIpbe' chIch 'e' vIchav} or {qaqIpbe' 'e' vIHech}
I thought about adding {-ta'} here, because it's an accomplished mission with purpose, but it then reminded me that {-ta'} is overly mis-used as tense. {qaqIpbe'} does not need tense when context is clear, and {chIch} adds the purpose.
You need to add the *ta': qaqIpta'be' 'e' vIHech.* You intended to have not hit me. You're looking back on a hypothetical completed act of not hitting, and you're saying that's what you intended. This is exactly parallel to TKD's *yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh*/I saw him/her hit the officers./ "Note that the verb in the second sentence, *vIlegh*/I see it,/ is neutral as to time. The past tense of the translation /(I saw...)/ comes from the verb in the first sentence, *qIppu'*/he/she hit him/her/ (*-pu'*/perfective/)." The thing about *-ta'* is that the intentionality of it is just a connotation of its perfectiveness. The primary meaning of *-ta'* is the same as the meaning of *-pu'.* It just has an added connotation of intentionality or accomplishment. You can't separate these two meanings. If you negate *-ta',* you're negating the accomplishment, not the intentionality. *qaqIpta'* does not equal *chIch qaqIp.* One is perfective, the other is not. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 06:29, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
I'd understand {qaqIpta'be'} as "I didn't hit you", with the implication that I deliberately did not hit you. The {-be'} negates the completion or accomplishment, not the intentionality.
I'm afraid I can't understand that. Lets take things from the start, ignoring the initial question of this thread.
Let's read what TKD says in section 4.2.7: --- begin quote --- This suffix is similar to {-pu',} but it is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it. English translations seldom reveal the distinction. {vISuqta'} I have acquired it ({Suq} get, acquire) {luHoHta'} they have killed him/her ({HoH} kill) The second 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 --- end quote --- The negation of "I have acquired it" is "I have not acquired it". The negation of "they have killed him/her" is "they have not killed him/her". This is true whether the acquisition or the killing is intentional or not.
qaqIpta' I set out to hit you and did it (qaqIpta')be' (I set out to hit you and did it)-not
Klingon is not a programming language. Negation in natural languages doesn't work like this. The difference between {-ta'} and {-pu'} is subtle and "English translations seldom reveal the distinction". The negation of "I hit you" is "I did not hit you", regardless of intention. If {qaqIpta'} is "I hit you (and I did it deliberately)", then {qaqIpta'be'} is "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)". Arguably, it's ambiguous whether the meaning is "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you" or "I intended to hit you, but did not hit you". Perhaps *that* distinction can be indicated by context. But the primary action of the negation is to negate the completion or accomplishment, not the intention. {-pu'} can always be used in the place of {-ta'}, even when the action was intentional, when one does not wish to imply that the action was intentional. If {-be'} did not negate the completion of the action (whether it negates the intention or not), this would not be true.
Meaning that "no intentional hitting took place", and not "intentionally, no hitting took place"; now, whether this would leave room for interpretation that "unintentional hitting could have taken place", which was the original question of this thread, is another story.
No, it actually does mean "no hitting took place". The meanings of {-pu'be'} and {-ta'be'} are the same, except that the latter implies the (in)action was intentional.
The only way I can see the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning being produced is by writing {qaqIpbe'ta'}:
That means "I accomplished not hitting you", which is different from "I did not hit you, on purpose" (though the difference is very subtle).
qaqIpbe' I don't hit you
(qaqIpbe')ta' I set out not to hit you and I accomplished it = I deliberately did not hit you
Let alone the fact that there is another problem with interpreting the {qaqIpta'be'} as "I deliberately did not hit you"; doing so would call for the "deliberate action described by the {-ta'}" to be acting on the {-be'} which follows it.
However, if we go here: https://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_140624.html
We will see that maltz has said:
*** quote start ***
"For the possessive suffixes, however, this doesn't work. {jaghna'lI'} means "definitely your enemy (and not your friend, etc.)." It doesn't specifically mean "definitely your enemy (and not mine)."
He said if you want to emphasize the possessor, just give it extra stress when saying the word: {DujlIj} (or DujlIj or DujlIj or DujlIj or DujLIJ or however you want to transcribe it -- I'm not sure whether italics and bold and all of that will show up for you)."
*** quote end ***
Note that Okrand's message supports my interpretation: the {-be'} negates the *aspect suffix* preceding it, i.e., the accomplishment. In order for your interpretation to be true (hitting took place, but it wasn't intentional), it would have to *not* negate the suffix, but at the same time negate something *implied* by the suffix. We've never seen {-be'} do this.
Seemingly/apparently, suffixes can act only on the suffixes preceding them, and not on the suffixes following them, which would be necessary to happen for the {qaqIpta'be'} to be meaning "I deliberately did not hit you".
No, the negation isn't acting on anything other than {-ta'}. Negating the accomplishment means the hitting was not accomplished. "I did not hit you (deliberately)" is what that sentence means. What reason is there to believe that the negation doesn't negate the accomplishment? -- De'vID
jIH:
Meaning that "no intentional hitting took place", and not "intentionally, no hitting took place"; now, whether this would leave room for interpretation that "unintentional hitting could have taken place", which was the original question of this thread, is another story. De'vID: No, it actually does mean "no hitting took place". The meanings of {-pu'be'} and {-ta'be'} are the same, except that the latter implies the (in)action was intentional.
ok, I understand that. jIH:
The only way I can see the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning being produced is by writing {qaqIpbe'ta'}: De'vID: That means "I accomplished not hitting you", which is different from "I did not hit you, on purpose" (though the difference is very subtle).
I understand this too. So far so good. De'vID:
If {qaqIpta'} is "I hit you (and I did it deliberately)", then {qaqIpta'be'} is "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)". Arguably, it's ambiguous whether the meaning is "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you" or "I intended to hit you, but did not hit you". Perhaps *that* distinction can be indicated by context. But the primary action of the negation is to negate the completion or accomplishment, not the intention.
ok, I understand this, but here is my problem: I want to say to say "I did not hit you"; no hitting has taken place, and the hitting which hasn't taken place is of the intentional kind. What I mean is: "I didn't (set out to hit you and subsequently hit you)". How do I say it ? If I write {qaqIpta'be'}, then it means "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately". If I write {qaqIppu'be'}, then this includes the meaning of "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately", but I don't know of it includes too the meaning which I want to express. And if I write {chIch qaqIppu'be'}, then seeming/apparently it means "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you". ~ mayqel qunen'oS
You seem to be ignoring the option of saying {qaqIpbe’ta’} and treating that as if it were synonymous with {qaqIpta’be’}. The former definitely means that I accomplished not hitting you. I had a goal of not hitting you and I achieved it. Maybe you were acting like the kind of jerk that would have pushed a less patient man over the threshold, but I made a promise not to hit you (to myself or someone else), and I kept it. {qaqIpta’be’} suggests that both the fact of hitting you and the goal of hitting you didn’t happen. Essentially, the goal of hitting you was not achieved. Context might make it more conclusive whether any hitting happened or not, but definitely there was a goal and it wasn’t achieved. Maybe I swung at you, but you ducked and I lightly grazed you and now you are whining about it, and I’m explaining that that little tap was nothing significant. It shouldn’t even count as hitting you. It was nothing I’d brag about and nothing you should complain about. Or maybe I just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Next time I see you, I intend to punch your lights out, but I haven’t seen you since I saw your message that triggered my new goal of placing my fist two inches past the boundary that is your face. As always, context clarifies the details. Does this help? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 16, 2020, at 9:00 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
Meaning that "no intentional hitting took place", and not "intentionally, no hitting took place"; now, whether this would leave room for interpretation that "unintentional hitting could have taken place", which was the original question of this thread, is another story. De'vID: No, it actually does mean "no hitting took place". The meanings of {-pu'be'} and {-ta'be'} are the same, except that the latter implies the (in)action was intentional.
ok, I understand that.
jIH:
The only way I can see the "I deliberately did not hit you" meaning being produced is by writing {qaqIpbe'ta'}: De'vID: That means "I accomplished not hitting you", which is different from "I did not hit you, on purpose" (though the difference is very subtle).
I understand this too. So far so good.
De'vID:
If {qaqIpta'} is "I hit you (and I did it deliberately)", then {qaqIpta'be'} is "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)". Arguably, it's ambiguous whether the meaning is "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you" or "I intended to hit you, but did not hit you". Perhaps *that* distinction can be indicated by context. But the primary action of the negation is to negate the completion or accomplishment, not the intention.
ok, I understand this, but here is my problem:
I want to say to say "I did not hit you"; no hitting has taken place, and the hitting which hasn't taken place is of the intentional kind. What I mean is: "I didn't (set out to hit you and subsequently hit you)". How do I say it ?
If I write {qaqIpta'be'}, then it means "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately". If I write {qaqIppu'be'}, then this includes the meaning of "I did not hit you, and I did deliberately", but I don't know of it includes too the meaning which I want to express.
And if I write {chIch qaqIppu'be'}, then seeming/apparently it means "I intended not to hit you, and in fact did not hit you".
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
You seem to be ignoring the option of saying {qaqIpbe’ta’} and treating that as if it were synonymous with {qaqIpta’be’}. The former definitely means that I accomplished not hitting you. I had a goal of not hitting you and I achieved it
ok, I understand the meaning of {qaqIpbe’ta’} (or at least I think I do..); but my problem is how to say: "I didn't (set out to hit you and subsequently hit you)". I don't want to say "I accomplished not hitting you". Lets approach this differently.. Situation: No hitting has taken place, and all parties involved know this. I don't want to say: "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)" I do want to say: "I did not inflict a deliberate hit on you" ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 17:19, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Lets approach this differently..
Situation: No hitting has taken place, and all parties involved know this.
I don't want to say: "I did not hit you (and I did it deliberately)" I do want to say: "I did not inflict a deliberate hit on you"
So what you want to say is "I *would have* inflicted a deliberate hit on you, were I to have hit you?" Maybe: {[qaqIpbe' 'ach] qaqIp net jalchugh, qaqIpta'}? -- De'vID
De'vID:
So what you want to say is "I *would have* inflicted a deliberate hit on you, were I to have hit you?"
Yes, something like that. Anyway, perhaps I'm overanalyzing this matter; let alone the fact, that neither in english nor in greek, someone could express the "I did not inflict a deliberate hit on you", with a simple "I didn't hit you". Context would have to clarify.. So, I'll just say a simple {qaqIppu'be'}, and leave it at that. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin