[tlhIngan Hol] thoughts on the -be'pu' vs -pu'be'

[mayqel qunen'oS]

This morning, after a not-so-good night's sleep but after a *very*
good coffee, I discussed this -be'pu' vs -pu'be' matter with qeylIS,
and I think that (finally) I understood what's going on.

If we say {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'} then it means "yesterday, I
have (not eaten a pizza)".

Now, suppose we say: {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}. This can be
interpreted in the following ways:

1. As in tkd; "yesterday, I (have eaten a pizza)-not", meaning
"yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza".  Here, the interpretation is
that the {-be'} acts on the entire {vISoppu'} which precedes it.

Before I continue to the point 2, there's something I need to comment;
Recently, I asked at another thread, whether the {vIqIpta'be'} could
mean "I did not inflict an intentional hit on you" instead of
"intentionally I didn't hit you." There, De'vID explained that the
{vIqIpta'be'} means ""intentionally I didn't hit you", something which
at the time I couldn't understand. But now, finally I can: If instead
of the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} we had {wa'Hu', pItSa'
vISopta'be'}, then again the meaning would be "yesterday, I (have
eaten a pizza)-not", meaning "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza";
but due to the nature of the {-ta'} the "have not" would need to be
understood as being intentional, thus producing the meaning which
De'vID suggested.

(returning to the original subject..)

2. In this scenario we take the {-be'} and apply it only to the
{-pu'}. So, the meaning becomes: "yesterday, I eat a pizza" (because
of the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISop}), but now, because of the action of the
{-pu'be'}, the complete meaning becomes that "my eating yesterday of
the pizza hasn't been completed". The meaning essentially becomes
"yesterday, I (haven't completely) eaten a pizza." But this
"completely" doesn't have the context of {-chu'}, as in "I didn't
perfectly devour the entire pizza." It rather has the meaning of
showing that the "completed action described by the {-pu'} hasn't run
its' entire course". Now, what the hell this can actually mean, I
don't know. Looking back on the event, I recall that perhaps the
eating was interrupted ? And if yes, then how would that be any
different from just using historical present thus saying {wa'Hu',
pItSa' vISop} "yesterday, I eat a pizza", and then proceed by
narrating whatever happened which led to the interruption of the
eating event ? I don't know.. Go figure.. Or perhaps the {wa'Hu',
pItSa' vISoppu'be'} *does* take place in the sense of the historical
present, with me saying: "look, yesterday I eat a pizza, and at the
moment when the eating event hasn't yet been completed, my ancient cat
jumps on my head.." I don't know..

But what I *do* know, is that here we have two morons..

Moron #1: The person who would actually use the {wa'Hu', pItSa'
vISoppu'be'} attributing to it the analysis described in point 2
above.

Moron #2: The person who would read the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'},
and understand it as the analysis described in point 2 above suggests.

Who is the greatest moron ? I don't know. But I do know that:

1. The only logical way by which a sane person would understand the
{wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, is as in point 1.

(and most importantly..)

2. Regardless whether we write {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'} or
{wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} (with the meaning of 1), the end result
is more or less the same. I don't see any actual/considerable
difference between "yesterday, I have (not eaten a pizza)" and
"yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza". Considering these two
sentences, I get the impression that this matter resembles the
difference between saying "I agree" and "I don't disagree". No
sentence is wrong, and perhaps this all boils down to what you want to
say, and most importantly how you want to say it.

Anyways, this is my understanding on the matter, and now, finally, I
can put my mind to rest.

Thank qeylIS..

~ mayqel qunen'oS
the main viewer on a klingon ship is usually
overlaid with a complex ancient cat acquisition grid