[tlhIngan Hol] We're here to help you

[mayqel qunen'oS]

Hugh:
> Dughelbe'law'pu' DIoraH poH Daper
> neHmo', 'a loQ taQmo' mu' «ngugh» Dalo'pu'DI'.

I'm afraid, I can't agree with your analysis.

Seemingly/apparently you suggest, that when using {ngugh}, one *has*
to specify exactly the point of time {ngugh} refers to.

One *can* do that, i.e. specify a point in time e.g. a date, but I
understand {ngugh} to be able to refer to the event itself.

In the original story, the {ngugh} refers to the event described:

"..*then* the humans were fighting, while they were surrounded, while
death was imminent.."

Perhaps this *then* is referring to a point in time which is in the
present, the past, or the future. But I don't see *why* I *should*
pinpoint *that* exact point.

I replied to DloraH, saying that it is the future, because I thought
that he asked out of curiosity. But I don't think that {ngugh} needs
to go together with a timestamp, nor that it sounds strange without
one preceding it.

Indeed, I wrote on twitter, {ngugh jatlh Darth Sidious..}, or I could
have written {ghIq jatlh Darth Sidious..}.

Both {ngugh} and {ghIq} could refer to or after, either a specific
point in time (timestamp), or to or after a situation e.g. *sidious*
'InSep remlu'taHvIS..

But I don't see why I *should* necessarily specify either, or even
*why* grammatically the sentence would be weird.

Context-wise, of course the reader could wonder; but it's up to the
author whether he wishes to reveal this information to the reader.

So, unless, 'oqranD has stated, that either {ngugh} or {ghIq}, should
mandatorily, be preceded by a timestamp, or by a situation with
regards to which they're to be understood, I can't agree, let alone
alter, the way I'm be using them.

~ m. qunen'oS