<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/28/2022 11:47 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de">luis.chaparro@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-6f26946e-edad-4232-9051-9daacad1f87f-1646066836075@3c-app-webde-bs57">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">*I will eat at 2 p.m. and then I will go home* would also be *jISoppu'* and *vIjaHpu'*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">No, I will eat is not perfective. It isn't describing a completed action. The eating is not being described as a completed whole. Same with the going home. wa'maH cha' vatlh rep jISop; ghIq juH vIjaH.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Is there any situation in which the English Future Simple can be translated into Klingon perfective?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I can't think of one.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I was thinking about this and I would like to ask the question the other way: regardless the fact that English Future Simple cannot be translated into Klingon perfective, would *wa'leS rep wa'maH loS jISoppu', ghIq juH vIjaHpu'* make any sense in Klingon without giving it an interpretation of perfect (*Tomorrow at 2 p.m. I will have eaten*)? I mean, is it possible to interpret it as a future counterpart of the past perfective *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH loS jISoppu', ghIq juH vIjaHpu'* (*Yesterday, I ate at 2 p.m. and then I went home*)? Since Klingon expresses aspect I don't see why it could not be possible, but maybe I'm missing something.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>wa'leS rep wa'maH loS jISoppu'; ghIq juH vIjaHpu'</b> means
that I'm looking forward to tomorrow, where there will be a point
at which I can look back at 2 pm and see that that's when I ate
and then subsequently went home. In English, this is only
expressed with the future perfect: T<i>omorrow at 2 pm I will have
eaten, and then I will have gone home.</i></p>
<p>If you say instead <b>wa'leS rep wa'maH loS jISop; ghIq juH
vIjaH,</b> this corresponds to English simple future: T<i>omorrow
at 2 pm I will eat, and then I will go home.</i> This doesn't
take a future viewpoint in which you are looking backwards at
completed events; it's taking a viewpoint of now and looking
forward into the future, seeing each action as they occur. <b>jISop</b><i>
I will eat</i> (not continuous, not perfective, just describing
the action in the moment it occurs, which happens to be in the
future) and <b>jaH vIjuH</b><i> I will go home</i> (the same).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-6f26946e-edad-4232-9051-9daacad1f87f-1646066836075@3c-app-webde-bs57">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">By the way: if we were talking about an habit, *I ate at 2 p.m. and then I went home* would be *rep wa'maH loS jISop, ghIq juH vIjaH*, right?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><i>I ate at 2 pm, and then I went home</i> is only a habit if it
means "It was my habit to eat at 2 pm and then go home." If that
is what you mean, then <b>rep wa'maH loS jISop; ghIq juH vIjaH</b>
is correct, although it lacks any indication that thsi is a habit
or in the past. For instance, <b>naH jajmeywIj, Hoch jaj rep
wa'maH loS roD jISop; ghIq juH vIjaH</b><i> In my youth, every
day at 2 pm I would eat, and then I would go home.</i> Notice
that I used <i>would,</i> the past tense of <i>will:</i> in
English, it is common, but not required, to express this sort of
thing this way. I could also say <i>In my youth, every day at 2
pm, I ate, and then I went home.</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>