[tlhIngan Hol] Time elements and *qaStaHvIS*, continuous and perfective aspect

[luis.chaparro at web.de]

charghwI':

> SuStel and I are repeatedly explaining to you that there is no map between tenses (perfect or otherwise) and the Klingon perfective aspect, and you keep coming back asking if a certain perfect tense maps to the Klingon perfective aspect.

I'm really sorry if I've bothered you or anyone with my questions, that was never my intention. I'm very grateful for the patience and help I experience in this email list.

Maybe I'm just stuck on some particular perspective or maybe I'm not able to express what I'm trying to say. I wasn't trying to ask if a certain perfect tense maps to the Klingon perfective aspect, I was actually trying (that's at least what I think) to ask the opposite: I was trying to think about aspect without hanging it to a specific tense. My question was why *wa'leS rep wa'maH loS jISoppu'* must necessarily fit the English Future Perfect, and why we couldn't give it another interpretation, *even though* there is no English tense to express it: instead of forcing it to a perfect interpretation in which the eating will be completed before 2 pm (*Tomorrow at 2 pm I will have eaten*), why couldn't we give it, depending on the situation, a perfective but not perfect interpretation similar to *Yesterday I ate at 2 pm*, but in the future, where the eating happens at 2 pm and is considered as a completed whole? In the past you can chose to translate *jISoppu'* with a perfect tense (e.g. *I had eaten*) or with a non perfect tense (*I ate*), depending on the situation. Why should we interpret *jISoppu'* in the future always as perfect?

If no one wants to continue this thread, that's really no problem. I'm already very happy with everything I've learned. Thank you!