[109093] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Mon Feb 27 05:59:34 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6bd55241-35ea-c8af-b2f2-d75854d01da6@gmx.de>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:59:30 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On 26 February 2017 at 10:45, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> But I do understand the confusion. Since {-ta'} is described as a non
> continuous counterpart to {-lI'}, there seems to be some intention. Saying
> {pumta' nagh} sounds like the stone has fallen by its own will.
{-ta'} indicates intention behind the action, but it doesn't
necessarily indicate intention on the part of the subject of the verb.
{pumta' nagh} is fine, if someone pushed the stone intentionally.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
