On 7/22/2022 1:13 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
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). 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. 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.
It sets up a different viewpoint, yes. If you say *vIlaDtaH,* you're putting your listener in the middle of those previous months. If you say *vIlaDpu',* you're putting your listener /after/ 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 *DaH,* so the previous time context of the previous months and the previous viewpoint go out the window.
For uncountable nouns the meaning is obviously singular, right? *'op bIQ* = *some water*. I don't know if I'd call that singular or plural since it's an uncountable noun. That's a good point. But *'op bIQ* is anyway grammatical and translates into *some water*, right?
Yes, I believe we can use *'op* with uncountable nouns.
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. 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." 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?
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 *Dochvam nuq* is substituting for *Dochvam 'oH* or if *nuq* is acting like a verb in its own right here. Or if it's Clipped Klingon for *Dochvam 'oH nuq'e'* (there are some canonical examples of this). I do not know whether *nuq mI'lIj* is Clipped Klingon for *nuq 'oH mI'lIj'e'.* 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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name