[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC : Sentences as objects

[Alan Anderson]

>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> luyu'nIS 'e' lulIj} <they forgot that they needed to question him>

> On 12/17/2015 11:24 AM, Alan Anderson wrote:
>> Depending on the exact situation being described, the first one
>> *might* be improved with the suffix {-pu'} on the first verb.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:36 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> In most examples I can think of, {-pu'} would not be desired.

Agreed, absolutely.

However, it is easy to contrive an example where it would not be out
of place, so I hedged my commendation by saying the sentence "*might*
be improved with" {-pu'}. Try adding {qama' luHoHpa'} to the
beginning, for instance.

> There was no interrogation, so there was no completion. The fact that it's in the
> past would be indicated by other context.

I believe the {qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH} example (TKD page 67) shows
that you can indicate completion even if the action did not occur.
That example also happens to be accompanied by an explanation that
"[the] past tense of the translation (I wanted...) comes from the
aspect marker on the first verb."

Of course, examples in isolation are not always instructional outside
the specific feature they are intended to show. In this case, it was
the fact that the pronoun {'e'} does not get used as the object of the
verb {neH}.

-- ghunchu'wI'