Rethinking this matter I think I found what it was that kept confusing me. It was the fact that the {yuD}/{yuDbe'} "dishonest"/"honest", have to do with situations (honesty/dishonesty) with either one being able to exist before the point of time the discussion takes place. So, I was confused by the change which I thought was being implied by the use of {yuDHa'}, and when saying "change" I don't mean "change" of the {-choH} kind. This whole matter became clear when I thought of {-Ha'} examples where the situation at hand refers to something which could not have happened in the past. And to illustrate my point I'll use an example. We've just met, and I'm giving you some info which you never heard before, which info for whatever reasons you misunderstand; so I tell you {bIyajHa'}. In this example I feel no problem with the {-Ha'}. I don't get the impression that in the past you understood but just now you've begun to misunderstand, for the obvious reason that there's no past. You've just been informed. So, the {-Ha'} doesn't imply that there was a {-Ha'}-less condition to begin with, from which condition a change was made; it rather means that whatever is the thing {-Ha'}'ed, is being understood as a mis- de- dis- situation of the non-{-Ha'}ed one. And the non-{-Ha'}ed one could certainly not have ever existed at all. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ