<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/22/2022 1:13 PM,
<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-d477ba39-16ea-4e40-8f9d-c4e23fff622d-1658510027691@3c-app-webde-bap01">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Yes, I know, I was rather asking if *vIlaDpu'* would be a correct option if I didn't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, and just wanted to speak about the action being completed (I guess this question makes more sense from a Spanish perspective, sorry).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">When we say the perfective means "completed," we don't just mean "no longer happening"; we mean that the action is being looked back upon as a whole action, without referencing how it occurred over time. All we know is that the speaker is establishing a viewpoint on the action from a time after it is over in order to look back on it as a completed whole.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't express myself correctly in English. My question is: *'ach tetlhvam QInmey Daj vIlaDpu'* is also possible if I don't want to emphasize the continuous aspect of the action, but rather present it as a completed whole, isn't it? I mean, it's not wrong in this context.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It sets up a different viewpoint, yes. If you say <b>vIlaDtaH,</b>
you're putting your listener in the middle of those previous
months. If you say <b>vIlaDpu',</b> you're putting your listener
<i>after</i> those months, looking back on them. I don't know that
I would call this emphasis. In this case it doesn't matter too
much which you use, because your next sentence establishes an
entirely new time context with <b>DaH,</b> so the previous time
context of the previous months and the previous viewpoint go out
the window.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-d477ba39-16ea-4e40-8f9d-c4e23fff622d-1658510027691@3c-app-webde-bap01">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I don't know if I'd call that singular or plural since it's an uncountable noun.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
That's a good point. But *'op bIQ* is anyway grammatical and translates into *some water*, right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, I believe we can use <b>'op</b> with uncountable nouns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-d477ba39-16ea-4e40-8f9d-c4e23fff622d-1658510027691@3c-app-webde-bap01">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That leads me to another question: When acting as a pronoun in the sense of *to be*, is the position of the question word relevant? Because we have the canon *Dochvam nuq* but also *nuq mI'lIj*. But personal pronouns always come after the noun.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I don't think it matters as far as any canonical explanation we've been given. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal pronouns always come after the noun."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I mean, in the sense of *to be* the pronoun always follows the noun: *mI'lIj 'oH* (*It's your number*). You cannot say *'oH mI'lIj* for *It's your number*. So I was wondering why the canonical example says *nuq mI'lIj* and not *mI'lIj nuq*, since we have been told that these question words work like pronouns in questions with *to be* in the English translations. Or am I missing something?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It's hard to tell whether something is Clipped Klingon or not.
I'm afraid I cannot answer your question definitively. I do not
know that <b>Dochvam nuq</b> is substituting for <b>Dochvam 'oH</b>
or if <b>nuq</b> is acting like a verb in its own right here. Or
if it's Clipped Klingon for <b>Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'</b> (there are
some canonical examples of this). I do not know whether <b>nuq
mI'lIj</b> is Clipped Klingon for <b>nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'.</b> All
I can tell you is that we've seen it both ways, and so far as I
know we don't have enough information to confidently analyze the
grammar.<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>