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 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