<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2022 11:45 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-2ee3bc26-341f-456a-a641-d43a557c019c-1649778301872@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">ja'chuqghach a telling to each other
ja'chuqtaHghach an ongoing telling to each other
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Ok, but for verbs without suffix we don't have this difference. I mean, the only way to say *the eating* is saying *the ongoing eating* (*SoptaHghach*), right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>SoptaHghach</b> means something different than <b>Sopghach.</b>
While <b>Sopghach</b> is not technically a grammatical term,
Okrand explains that you might use such a word temporarily if it
made a technical point, with a wink to its ungrammaticality.</p>
<p>How to say <i>the eating</i> depends on what you mean. A
competed act of eating? <b>Soppu'ghach.</b> An ongoing act of
eating? <b>SoptaHghach.</b> The beginning of the eating? <b>SopchoHghach.</b>
And generally, <b>-ghach</b> is more often used for technical
discussions; usually instead of saying something like <b>nI'
SoptaHghach</b><i> the ongoing eating was long,</i> you'd say
something like <b>SoptaH chaH qaStaHvIS poH nI'</b><i> they were
eating for a long time.</i></p>
<p>And, of course, we can also say <b>Sopchuqghach</b> <i>the
eating of each other...</i><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-2ee3bc26-341f-456a-a641-d43a557c019c-1649778301872@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">If you want the "past event relevant to the named time" stuff in Klingon, then you have to say it explicitly. wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu' I ate at noon yesterday, so in the afternoon I fought forcefully. I named the time context for each verb to clearly set their temporal order and used vaj to show that the one led to the other.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
But then, we should do the same for the future, shouldn't we? If we want the *past event relevant to the named time* stuff, we have to say it explicitly. Just saying *wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu'*, without any further context, wouldn't have the connotation of perfect that the English *Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten* has.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Right. <i>Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten</i> is close to the
meaning of the Klingon, but it's not exact. You might say <b>wa'leS
DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu'</b><i> Tomorrow at
noon I will have eaten, so in the afternoon I will have fought
forcefully.</i> English doesn't let me say this without the
future perfect tense. If I could borrow the simple past tense, I
could say <i>Tomorrow at noon I ate, so in the afternoon
(tomorrow) I fought forcefully.</i> But we can't say that in
English.<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>