I know I’m missing the point. People write here wanting to test if a specific grammatical construction can mean what they want, and instead I tend to want to come up with a translation of what they seemed to want to express that might do a better job than the test case presented. It’s just what I do; what I’ve always done. My issue here is that a command is a command. A commander wants you to do what the command says. There is a result the commander seeks. You are commanding someone to examine the facts. When should they command the facts? They should do it before they accuse you. It’s like you are commanding them to accuse you, since the “before you accuse me” is just basically a time stamp placed on the command to examine the facts. In other words, it’s fine if they accuse you, so long as they examine the facts first. But that doesn’t feel like the real meaning you have. It feels more like you are saying, “Don’t accuse me, unless you have examined the facts.” bo’DIj nompuqna’ DaHutlhchugh, HIpumQo’! Your command perhaps should not be to examine the evidence. The command should be to not have the person accuse you, since that’s the result you want. You want them to not accuse you. You can give them a way out of your command, if you like. If they provide evidence that you are involved in some crime or sin or behavior deserving of accusation, then, sure. Go ahead and accuse you, but if that condition isn’t met, the command is to shut the **** up. It’s that Klingon preference for the thing I do so badly in English: Get to the point. Speak directly. What is your goal? Your mission? You want the person to not accuse you. Your roadblock against the accusation is the requirement to examine the facts (or perhaps more directly, the evidence, since that is less tainted by opinion than so-called facts can be). pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On May 6, 2022, at 8:39 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Suppose I write:

chopumchoHpa', ngoD tIpojchu'pu' before you begin to accuse me, have examined the facts

Would it be correct?

Meaning that you need to have already examined the facts, before you start throwing accusations.

Of course, I could just write {chopumchoHpa', ngoDmey bopojnISchu'pu'}, but the thing I'm wondering is whether it would be right/acceptable to use aspect with imperatives.

-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org