[109084] in tlhIngan-Hol
[tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sat Feb 25 14:36:47 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:36:12 -0500
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============1840090732016699581==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------179775381C8768E301EE1B52"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------179775381C8768E301EE1B52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There was a discussion on Facebook about whether *-lI'* needs to be
intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think.
The question: does the verb suffix *-lI'* imply that an agent
intentionally set up an end to a process?
The arguments in favor:
* TKD p. 43 says "*-lI'*, on the other hand, can be used only when
there is an implied goal." If something has a goal, someone must
have set the process in motion toward that goal.
* There are no canonical examples of *-lI'* being used where an agent
hasn't set the process in motion toward the goal.
* TKD p. 43 says "It is possible to consider *-lI'* a /continuous/
counterpart of *-ta',* and *-taH* a /continuous/ counterpart of
*-pu'.*" The difference between *-pu'* and *-ta'* is that the latter
implies intentionality, so the difference between *-taH* and *-lI'*
is also that the latter implies intentionality.
The arguments against:
* TKD p. 42 says "Unlike *-taH,* however, *-lI'* implies that the
activity has a known goal or a definite stopping point." A definite
stopping point is mentioned as an alternative to a known goal, and
such does not imply intentional agency.
* The example of *vIlI'lI'* on TKD p. 42 says "This word implies that
data are in the process of being transmitted, but that there is a
finite amount of data, so there will be a definite end to the
transmission." This explanation does not reference the transmitter's
goal in sending data, only the known end of transmission when there
is no more data. The sender may have had a goal, but the explanation
this word doesn't mention that.
* There are so few canonical examples of *-lI'* that lacking examples
of non-intentional progress is not surprising.
The arguments in favor say that a sentence like *pumlI' nagh* to refer
to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a landslide, is
ungrammatical.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------179775381C8768E301EE1B52
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>There was a discussion on Facebook about whether <b>-lI'</b>
needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other
list members think.</p>
<p>The question: does the verb suffix <b>-lI'</b> imply that an
agent intentionally set up an end to a process?</p>
<p>The arguments in favor:</p>
<ul>
<li>TKD p. 43 says "<b>-lI'</b>, on the other hand, can be used
only when there is an implied goal." If something has a goal,
someone must have set the process in motion toward that goal.</li>
<li>There are no canonical examples of <b>-lI'</b> being used
where an agent hasn't set the process in motion toward the goal.</li>
<li>TKD p. 43 says "It is possible to consider <b>-lI'</b> a <i>continuous</i>
counterpart of <b>-ta',</b> and <b>-taH</b> a <i>continuous</i>
counterpart of <b>-pu'.</b>" The difference between <b>-pu'</b>
and <b>-ta'</b> is that the latter implies intentionality, so
the difference between <b>-taH</b> and <b>-lI'</b> is also
that the latter implies intentionality.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The arguments against:</p>
<ul>
<li>TKD p. 42 says "Unlike <b>-taH,</b> however, <b>-lI'</b>
implies that the activity has a known goal or a definite
stopping point." A definite stopping point is mentioned as an
alternative to a known goal, and such does not imply intentional
agency.</li>
<li>The example of <b>vIlI'lI'</b> on TKD p. 42 says "This word
implies that data are in the process of being transmitted, but
that there is a finite amount of data, so there will be a
definite end to the transmission." This explanation does not
reference the transmitter's goal in sending data, only the known
end of transmission when there is no more data. The sender may
have had a goal, but the explanation this word doesn't mention
that.</li>
<li>There are so few canonical examples of <b>-lI'</b> that
lacking examples of non-intentional progress is not surprising.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The arguments in favor say that a sentence like <b>pumlI' nagh</b>
to refer to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a
landslide, is ungrammatical.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------179775381C8768E301EE1B52--
--===============1840090732016699581==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============1840090732016699581==--
