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