[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[De'vID jonpIn]

loghaD:
>>> However, my favorite remains {wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbej.}: It's
>>> short and succinct.

SuStel:
> I would once again point out that {-pu'} indicates perfective aspect (a
> completed event in its entirety) rather than perfect tense (doing something
> prior to the time context). Lack of a Type 7 suffix means the verb is
> neither completed nor continuous, a propensity to the verb.

But does being neither completed nor continuous necessarily indicate propensity?

{yaS vIlegh} means "I see the officer", not "I generally see the officer".

SuStel:
> "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." (TKD p. 40)

I think that leaves room for {yaS vIlegh} to mean "I see the officer
(at the moment, in this instant only)".  It's not {yaS vIleghpu'}
because the act of my seeing him isn't done yet (he hasn't left the
room, say), but it's also not {yaS vIleghtaH} because I'm not
continuously looking at him, nor {yaS vIleghlI'} because my seeing him
isn't proceeding towards some expected goal.  He just happens to be
there, and I see him.

Or do you think this sentence was simplified for pedagogical purposes
and doesn't mean what the translation says it means?

--
De'vID