Hugh:
Dughelbe'law'pu' DIoraH poH Daper neHmo', 'a loQ taQmo' mu' «ngugh» Dalo'pu'DI'.
I'm afraid, I can't agree with your analysis. Seemingly/apparently you suggest, that when using {ngugh}, one *has* to specify exactly the point of time {ngugh} refers to. One *can* do that, i.e. specify a point in time e.g. a date, but I understand {ngugh} to be able to refer to the event itself. In the original story, the {ngugh} refers to the event described: "..*then* the humans were fighting, while they were surrounded, while death was imminent.." Perhaps this *then* is referring to a point in time which is in the present, the past, or the future. But I don't see *why* I *should* pinpoint *that* exact point. I replied to DloraH, saying that it is the future, because I thought that he asked out of curiosity. But I don't think that {ngugh} needs to go together with a timestamp, nor that it sounds strange without one preceding it. Indeed, I wrote on twitter, {ngugh jatlh Darth Sidious..}, or I could have written {ghIq jatlh Darth Sidious..}. Both {ngugh} and {ghIq} could refer to or after, either a specific point in time (timestamp), or to or after a situation e.g. *sidious* 'InSep remlu'taHvIS.. But I don't see why I *should* necessarily specify either, or even *why* grammatically the sentence would be weird. Context-wise, of course the reader could wonder; but it's up to the author whether he wishes to reveal this information to the reader. So, unless, 'oqranD has stated, that either {ngugh} or {ghIq}, should mandatorily, be preceded by a timestamp, or by a situation with regards to which they're to be understood, I can't agree, let alone alter, the way I'm be using them. ~ m. qunen'oS