SuStel:

> > Maybe I've found the source of misunderstanding. When you say in English *Yesterday I ate at 2 pm*, does it mean that at 2 pm you have already eaten?

> No. It means that the eating occurred at 2 pm, but doesn't say anything
> about when eating was completed. Without any further context, one would
> assume that the eating /started/ at 2 pm, but it's not literally saying
> that. You're taking your finger, pointing at 2 pm, and saying that that
> is when you ate. You're not discussing how long it took you to eat it or
> when you started or stopped eating. 2 pm is treated like a durationless
> point in which the action occurred, even if the action is not literally
> instantaneous.

That's exactly what I was postulating for the future: For a sentence like *wa'leS rep wa'maH loS jISoppu' 'ej juH vIjaHpu'*, in addition to the interpretation in which the eating and the going home happen *before* 2 pm (*At 2 pm I will have eaten and gone home*), there is maybe an interpretation in which Klingons point at 2 pm and say that tomorrow at this durationless point the eating and the going home take place (i.e., the actions don't occur *before* 2 pm), and these actions are presented as completed wholes, without showing its internal structure or flow.

But experienced Klingon speakers are saying to me that that's not the case in Klingon, so I will forget it and continue learning :-)

Iikka Hauhio:

> I think it would be useful if we used long texts like this as examples instead of individual sentences.

You're totally right, but unfortunately my Klingon is not that good that I can write without problem complex sentences. Anyway, I will try!