<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/22/2016 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLHM6G693Zj9_4JL0vX3N08x1816BpmGzahmywAMbK1qw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">lieven:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you think "because it happened in the past", then drop it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
good point. but the question now arises: usually the things which have
happened in the past, haven't been completed as well ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>You're not building sentences based on logical truths; you're
building context. Something may have been completed in the past,
but are you TALKING about it being completed?</p>
<p>For instance, <b>wa'Hu' pItSa' vISop</b><i> yesterday, I ate
pizza. </i>It says that pizza-eating happened yesterday, but in
that sentence pizza-eating was NOT completed. It is a statement of
general truth. General truths are not completed; the FACT of my
eating pizza was not completed. Pizza-eating happened yesterday.</p>
<p>But then there's <b>wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'</b><i> yesterday, I
ate pizza.</i> English makes no distinction, but it means
something different in Klingon. Yesterday there was pizza-eating,
and I'm telling you that I ate and finished eating it. This is not
a general truth; this is describing a specific event. Yesterday,
pizza-eating happened and completed.</p>
<p>The former version might be an answer to the question <b>wa'Hu'
nuq DaSop </b><i>what did you eat yesterday?</i> The latter to
the question <b>wa'Hu' nuq Data'pu'</b><i> what did you do
yesterday?</i><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>