On 10/29/2020 9:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

mu'tlhegh wa':

pa'logh, qaStaHvIS wa' DIS, pItSa' vISop during one year in the past, I eat pitsa (my eating the pizza is an event being repeated during that period more than once)

mu'tlhegh cha':

pa'logh, qaStaHvIS wa' DIS, reH/roD/pIj/motlh pItSa' vISoppu' during one year in the past, I have eaten pizza always/regularly/often/usually (my eating the pizza is an event being repeated during that period more than once)

vaj.. raplaw' mu'tlhegh wa' mu'tlhegh cha' je; chaq wa' DI'onmo' neH pIm mu'tlheghvam:

historical present lo' mu'tlhegh wa' "looking back" Ho'DoS lo' mu'tlhegh cha'

jIlugh'a' ?

No, I would say that sentence one is stating a general truth, not speaking in a way resembling English historical present tense. (You can just say *wa' DIS* as a time expression. We have the example of *wa' jaj* in TKW that does the same thing. *wa' DIS pItSa' chab vISop*/One year, I ate pizza./) I really don't think another extended discussion of the difference between using perfective in the past and not using perfective in the past is going to be of any help. Perfective means you're looking back at an action completed no matter where in time that action occurs relative to you. Lacking perfective or continuous suffixes means the sentence means anything other than perfective or continuous. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name