hmm.. so, if I write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}, then I'm saying "yesterday, as soon as my seeing you was completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence, takes place after I stopped seeing you. and If I write {loS Hu' qaleghDI'}, then this means "yesterday as soon as my seeing you had started, but it still wasn't completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence takes place as soon as I saw you, but with "my seeing you" still taking place. right ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 2:02 pm, "DloraH" <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 12:34 +0200, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I want to write "yesterday as soon as we ate" then I would probably say {wa'Hu' maSoppu'DI'}
If I want to write "four days ago as soon as I saw you" then I would probably write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}
If I want to write "four months ago as soon as I hit you" then I would probably say {loS wen qaqIppu'DI'}
If the above sentences are correct, then this means that when we talk about a past event which is described by the {-DI'}, then always the {-pu'} is appropriate.
Or, to express the same question differently "is there a way for a past event, which is described by the {-DI'} not to be completed, thus not being able to take the {-pu'} ?"
qunnoH jan puqloD
Is the "seeing" completed? Say the "seeing" takes place over a couple hours. If the -DI' refers to when you start to see them, the beginning of that two hour period, you would not use -pu'.
- DloraH
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org