On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 15:14, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
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. [...] 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.
lugh Hugh. http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-11-05-news.txt --- begin quote --- The adverbial is (ngugh}. It is used mainly to emphasize that a particular event occurred at the same time as something else, though {ngugh} doesn't indicate what that time is. Something else in the discussion makes that clear. {ngugh} does not mean "at some (vague) time in the past" or "at some (unknown) time in the future." For example: (1) vagh SanID ben buDbe' wamwI'pu'. ngugh Ho'Du'chaj lo' chaH, 'ach DaH tajmey lo'. [...] (2) DungluQ tIHIv. ngugh Qongbe' chaH. [...] Note that in each case {ngugh} "then" refers to a time specified earlier in the discussion (here, "5,000 years ago" and "noon"). [...] Since {ngugh} points to or refers back to a previously established time reference, if that time reference is not clear (or is missing), an utterance containing {ngugh} would not make much sense. If someone asks "When?" after hearing a sentence containing {ngugh}, unless the question resulted from inattentiveness, {ngugh} was probably used inappropriately. --- end quote --- -- De'vID