This morning, after a not-so-good night's sleep but after a *very* good coffee, I discussed this -be'pu' vs -pu'be' matter with qeylIS, and I think that (finally) I understood what's going on. If we say {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'} then it means "yesterday, I have (not eaten a pizza)". Now, suppose we say: {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}. This can be interpreted in the following ways: 1. As in tkd; "yesterday, I (have eaten a pizza)-not", meaning "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza". Here, the interpretation is that the {-be'} acts on the entire {vISoppu'} which precedes it. Before I continue to the point 2, there's something I need to comment; Recently, I asked at another thread, whether the {vIqIpta'be'} could mean "I did not inflict an intentional hit on you" instead of "intentionally I didn't hit you." There, De'vID explained that the {vIqIpta'be'} means ""intentionally I didn't hit you", something which at the time I couldn't understand. But now, finally I can: If instead of the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} we had {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopta'be'}, then again the meaning would be "yesterday, I (have eaten a pizza)-not", meaning "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza"; but due to the nature of the {-ta'} the "have not" would need to be understood as being intentional, thus producing the meaning which De'vID suggested. (returning to the original subject..) 2. In this scenario we take the {-be'} and apply it only to the {-pu'}. So, the meaning becomes: "yesterday, I eat a pizza" (because of the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISop}), but now, because of the action of the {-pu'be'}, the complete meaning becomes that "my eating yesterday of the pizza hasn't been completed". The meaning essentially becomes "yesterday, I (haven't completely) eaten a pizza." But this "completely" doesn't have the context of {-chu'}, as in "I didn't perfectly devour the entire pizza." It rather has the meaning of showing that the "completed action described by the {-pu'} hasn't run its' entire course". Now, what the hell this can actually mean, I don't know. Looking back on the event, I recall that perhaps the eating was interrupted ? And if yes, then how would that be any different from just using historical present thus saying {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISop} "yesterday, I eat a pizza", and then proceed by narrating whatever happened which led to the interruption of the eating event ? I don't know.. Go figure.. Or perhaps the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} *does* take place in the sense of the historical present, with me saying: "look, yesterday I eat a pizza, and at the moment when the eating event hasn't yet been completed, my ancient cat jumps on my head.." I don't know.. But what I *do* know, is that here we have two morons.. Moron #1: The person who would actually use the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} attributing to it the analysis described in point 2 above. Moron #2: The person who would read the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, and understand it as the analysis described in point 2 above suggests. Who is the greatest moron ? I don't know. But I do know that: 1. The only logical way by which a sane person would understand the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, is as in point 1. (and most importantly..) 2. Regardless whether we write {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'} or {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} (with the meaning of 1), the end result is more or less the same. I don't see any actual/considerable difference between "yesterday, I have (not eaten a pizza)" and "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza". Considering these two sentences, I get the impression that this matter resembles the difference between saying "I agree" and "I don't disagree". No sentence is wrong, and perhaps this all boils down to what you want to say, and most importantly how you want to say it. Anyways, this is my understanding on the matter, and now, finally, I can put my mind to rest. Thank qeylIS.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS the main viewer on a klingon ship is usually overlaid with a complex ancient cat acquisition grid