On 4/7/2022 11:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'
In the sentence above, wouldn't it be preferable if instead of {jIghungchoHDI'} we had {jIghungchoHpu'DI'}, since we report an event by looking back on it?
Only if you're reporting a completed act of becoming hungry. But that's not necessarily the function of *jIghunchoHDI'* here. You might be instead be talking about something happening /at the moment the change to being hungry occurred./ It's the difference between "Earlier, I wasn't hungry, and then switched to being hungry. Once this change was complete, I ordered pizza" (with *-choHpu'*) and "Earlier I wasn't hungry, then I switched to being hungry. As this change occurred, or just at the tail end of this change, I ordered pizza" (with only *choH*). Which one you use depends on which story you're telling. The version with *-choHpu'* is probably about how, because you became hungry, you ordered pizza, while the version with just *-choH* might be about how your hunger and dinnertime happened to coincide. There might be other reasons to choose one or the other.
And returning to the question troubling me earlier, I still have this problem which drives me crazy:
Regardless whether we write {wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'} or {wa'Hu' jIghungchoHpu'DI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, can't this be understood as "I have (already) ordered the pizza, before I become/have become hungry"?
Saying *wa'Hu' jIXpu'* doesn't mean "as of yesterday I have already done X." It means "yesterday, I performed a completed action X." "Completed" doesn't mean action X was a fulfillment of a goal; it's just a way of looking at action X from afar, without internal parts. If I say /Yesterday I ate dinner,/ that doesn't imply that I ate everything on my plate or that I stopped when I was no longer hungry; it's just a way to describe the eating from a temporal remove, in its entirety without internal detail. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name