<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/4/2022 7:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+xWNifaJvpdzH1g1xA2bSOMTNkPa+UszFscGBR-Y74Gw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">1. If I'm narrating events of the past using
"historical present", i.e. describing them as they happen,
then no perfective is used.<br>
2. If I'm looking back from the present on actions performed
and completed, then I use perfective.<br>
3. If I'm looking back from the present on habitual
events/actions of the past, events which can be described by
the "used to", no perfective is used.<br>
4. If I'm looking back from the present on completed
events/actions of the past, which weren't habitual, but
happened more than once, perfective is used:<br>
5. If I'm looking back from the present on quality verbs,
and the quality described can be described by the "used to",
no perfective is used:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>All good. I don't think I'd personally split them up this way,
but I don't disagree with anything here.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+xWNifaJvpdzH1g1xA2bSOMTNkPa+UszFscGBR-Y74Gw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">6. If I'm looking back from the present on
quality verbs, but the quality described can't be described
by the "used to", perfective is used:</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<br>
In the past the water has been hot<br>
In the past there was just one (or maybe two/three/more)
occasion(s) when the water was hot<br>
(the second sentence describes the intended meaning)<br>
<br>
pa'logh tujpu' bIQ
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the past the water often has been hot</div>
<div>pa'logh pIj tujpu' bIQ<br>
<br>
This is the best I can do when it comes to understanding
the {-pu'}, and I'd love to hear whether you
agree/disagree with the above.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This one I don't agree with. The words <i>used to</i> aren't
necessary to avoid perfective; they're just a convenient, but
incomplete, test to see if you're thinking in terms of perfective
or not. Besides, I don't see why <i>the water has often been hot</i>
couldn't be said as <i>the water often used to be hot.</i> So I
don't think you're looking at <i>used to</i> in quite the right
way.</p>
<p>I wouldn't use perfective on either of these. Even if you're
describing water that was only hot two or three times, you're
still describing the being hot, not a completed action of being
hot. <b>'op ret</b><b> tuj bIQ</b><i> in the past, the water has
been hot; </i><b>'op ret</b><b> pIj tuj bIQ</b><i> in the past,
the water has often been hot.</i> Putting the English
translations into the present perfect tense is a feature of
English, not Klingon. Klingon doesn't mark verbs for "past action
that is relevant now" the way English present perfect does. You
could just as easily translate these <b>'op ret tuj bIQ</b><i> in
the past, the water was hot</i> and <b>'op ret pIj tuj bIQ</b><i>
in the past, the water was often hot</i> and still have a
perfectly correct translation. The concept of "past action,
relevant now" doesn't exist in the Klingon original.</p>
<p>(By the way, I believe <b>pa'logh</b> refers to the past as a
whole, not to some point in the past, which is <b>'op ret.</b> To
refer to some action taking place at the time <b>pa'logh</b>
makes very little sense, as if the whole of the past was just one
little dot on a timeline.)<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>