jISovbe'.. ngoDHomvam vIperlaHbe'. ~ m. qunen'oS

On May 22, 2019, at 03:48, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

DloraH:

...

ngugh bIjatlh... poH yIngu'. ghorgh qaS?

DloraH, jIwuqpu' !

tuch, qaS lutvam. vaj, tuch, qaS poHvam.

Dughelbe'law'pu' DIoraH poH Daper neHmo', 'a loQ taQmo' mu' «ngugh» Dalo'pu'DI'. «ngugh» DaghItlhDI', laDwI'vaD poH le' DaqelmoH. vaj mu'tlhegh lIHchugh «ngugh» 'ach poH perbe'lu'law'chugh, taQ «ngugh». «ngugh» Dalo'chugh, poH yIper. poH Daper DaneHbe'chugh, «ngugh» yIlo'Qo'. ghantoH: wejvatlh nem qaS Daw'. ngugh, Hargh Humanpu'… valqu'choH tera' dogmey 'ej lotlhchoH. ngugh, Hargh Humanpu'… jatlh tuch rItwI': 'opleS teHbej wanI' vIDebogh. ngugh, Hargh Humanpu'… pIj ghItlh DalIHmeH «ngugh» Dalo' 'e' vItu', 'a pIj Dalo'DI' mItbe'. ghantoH: ngugh jatlh Darth Sidious… «ngugh» bIjatlh DaneHDI', yIghel'egh: «ghorgh?» mu'meylIj buStaHvIS 'IjwI' laDwI' joq «ghorgh?» janglaHbe'chugh, mItbe' «ngugh».

De'vID:

vIghro... rePAWta'. ta' Data'pu'bogh vIleghchu'. jIH: 'ej DaH boqvam tIQ wIquvmoHmeH tlhIH repawta'

The intended meaning was: "and now, this ancient alliance in order to honor, we have arrived". The accomplishment is the returning. Is there something wrong ? I can't understand what I'm missing here.. ~ m. qunen'oS

aah.. maj ! DaH, jIyajlaw'.. ~ m. qunen'oS

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. Seemingly/apparently you suggest, that when using {ngugh}, one *has* to specify exactly the point of time {ngugh} refers to. One *can* do that, i.e. specify a point in time e.g. a date, but I understand {ngugh} to be able to refer to the event itself. In the original story, the {ngugh} refers to the event described: "..*then* the humans were fighting, while they were surrounded, while death was imminent.." Perhaps this *then* is referring to a point in time which is in the present, the past, or the future. But I don't see *why* I *should* pinpoint *that* exact point. I replied to DloraH, saying that it is the future, because I thought that he asked out of curiosity. But I don't think that {ngugh} needs to go together with a timestamp, nor that it sounds strange without one preceding it. Indeed, I wrote on twitter, {ngugh jatlh Darth Sidious..}, or I could have written {ghIq jatlh Darth Sidious..}. Both {ngugh} and {ghIq} could refer to or after, either a specific point in time (timestamp), or to or after a situation e.g. *sidious* 'InSep remlu'taHvIS.. But I don't see why I *should* necessarily specify either, or even *why* grammatically the sentence would be weird. Context-wise, of course the reader could wonder; but it's up to the author whether he wishes to reveal this information to the reader. 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. ~ m. qunen'oS

De'vID already provided the canon description of {ngugh} (which I hadn’t been aware had been described in such a level of detail, so thanks for that) but to clarify further:

On May 22, 2019, at 08:14, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

One *can* do that, i.e. specify a point in time e.g. a date, but I understand {ngugh} to be able to refer to the event itself.

In the original story, the {ngugh} refers to the event described:

"..*then* the humans were fighting, while they were surrounded, while death was imminent.."

If that was your intent, that {ngugh} referred to the time of the fighting it would have been better if {ngugh} occurred after the sentence about the fighting. {Hargh Humanpu'… ngugh Humanpu' Dechchu'ta' dogmey} The humans fight… at that time the dogs had completely surrounded the humans

Perhaps this *then* is referring to a point in time which is in the present, the past, or the future. But I don't see *why* I *should* pinpoint *that* exact point.

Because {ngugh} calls attention to a point in time. It doesn’t have to refer to an exact time*stamp* like “the day before yesterday”, “at 5:17 in the morning”, or “twenty three years from now”, but it should refer to some point in time that has been previously discussed. That point of time can be another action, like {jIDoy'choH. ngugh jIghung je.} - I will grow tired. At that time I will also be hungry. If {ngugh} is the first word in a passage, then it makes it seem like the text has been excerpted from something larger and there’s some missing context.

Context-wise, of course the reader could wonder; but it's up to the author whether he wishes to reveal this information to the reader.

I do seem to recognize a common rhetorical “then” that is used to introduce phrases in English, and indeed saying something like “Then, Darth Sidious said…” doesn’t sound *that* strange, but consider if I change it to: “When it happened, Darth Sidious said…” “After that, Darth Sidious said…” Doesn’t that make you think that there’s some additional context missing? Is it really that unusual for the reader to think the author has left out something important? Of course it’s up to the writer whether to reveal at what time something happened. But if you don’t feel the need to reveal the time, then why use {ngugh} at all? It has to happen at *some* point in time, but if you’re not going to say when, don’t call extra attention to the when. If I start a sentence with {pa'}, wouldn’t you be curious where it happened? Of course it happens *somewhere*, but if I start sprinkling {pa'} everywhere without also referring to an actual place it starts seeming a bit weird. That’s what using {ngugh} without also mentioning the time it refers to feels like.