tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 12 23:00:47 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -taH vs. -lI'

charghwI'vo:
     I've been swayed by arguments in favor of {-lI'} most often being
associated with intent and {-taH} having no particular association with
intent. Citing the paragraph at the top of TKD page 43 made a huge
difference.

     I also accept the excellent argument presented by Krankor. It reinforces
my earlier sense of {-lI'} referring to a definitely finite process while
{-taH} is very vague about whether the process is finite or infinite.

     The interpretation I'm carrying away from this argument is something
like this:

     If we speak of something that is perpetual or carries the sense of
perpetuity, definitely use {-taH}. I can also use {-taH} to refer to the
actions of verbs that are definitely not perpetual, but merely vague about
any beginning point or end point. {naDev jIHtaH} is a valid response to
{nuqDaq SoH}, even if I just got here and I don't intend to stand in one
place very long. My sense is that I am merely establishing that I am being
here at this location, rather than that I AM this location. This also
explains why it is allowable to use {-taH} in all those non-perpetual
{-taHvIS} instances.

     If there is a goal associated with the verb, and when that goal is
reached, the action of the verb will stop, that is the mother of all
appropriate times to use {-lI'}. The same suffix can be used to express the
simpler concept of an action with a foreseeable, specific end point. The
message is that the process has definitely begun and it is definitely
progressing toward a state which will call for an end to the action.

     Am I missing anything?

charghwI'

Back to archive top level