[tlhIngan Hol] expressing "honest" {yuD} {yuDHa'} {yuDbe'} understanding the {-Ha'}

[mayqel qunen'oS]

Rethinking this matter I think I found what it was that kept confusing me.

It was the fact that the {yuD}/{yuDbe'} "dishonest"/"honest", have to
do with situations (honesty/dishonesty) with either one being able to
exist before the point of time the discussion takes place. So, I was
confused by the change which I thought was being implied by the use of
{yuDHa'}, and when saying "change" I don't mean "change" of the
{-choH} kind.

This whole matter became clear when I thought of {-Ha'} examples where
the situation at hand refers to something which could not have
happened in the past. And to illustrate my point I'll use an example.

We've just met, and I'm giving you some info which you never heard
before, which info for whatever reasons you misunderstand; so I tell
you {bIyajHa'}.

In this example I feel no problem with the {-Ha'}. I don't get the
impression that in the past you understood but just now you've begun
to misunderstand, for the obvious reason that there's no past. You've
just been informed.

So, the {-Ha'} doesn't imply that there was a {-Ha'}-less condition to
begin with, from which condition a change was made; it rather means
that whatever is the thing {-Ha'}'ed, is being understood as a mis-
de- dis- situation of the non-{-Ha'}ed one. And the non-{-Ha'}ed one
could certainly not have ever existed at all.

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ