[tlhIngan Hol] thoughts on the perfective {-pu'}

[D qunen'oS]

jIH:
> If instead of {bIyIntaHvIS bIchul ’e’
> Da’aghta’} we had {bIchul ’e’ Da’aghta’
> bIyIntaHvIS}, would there be any
> difference?
ghunchu'wI':
> There is certainly a difference. You have
> moved the dependent clause to a
> different sentence, applying it to {'aghta'}
> instead of {chul}.

Thanks for replying.

I think I understand your comment, but I can't *feel* what the
(considerable) difference between the two is.

bIyIntaHvIS bIchul ’e’ Da’aghta’
while you were living you were wise; you displayed that

bIchul ’e’ Da’aghta’ bIyIntaHvIS
you were wise; while you were living you displayed that

Meaning-wise I can't *feel* any significant difference.

ghunchu'wI':
> It also seems odd style to have a V-
> taHvIS providing context for a V-ta', but I
> suppose it works

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Why would that be odd?

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220716/048b3b03/attachment-0011.htm>