RE: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG

[Qov <qov@direct.ca>]

 > >I think he should have left of the -pu'.

 > Now that I look at it again, I think you're
 > right. Since all three sentences have it, probably none need it (or else 
only the > first needs it, and the others can inherit its time context).

Aaah, no, there is no time context implied by -pu'.  It's RELATIVE 
COMPLETION.  The time context is provided by time words.

wa' ben bu' muHlu'.
A year ago the sergeant was executed.

wa'Hu' bu' tlhabmoH neH ta', 'a muHlu'pu'mo' DuHbe'.
Yesterday the emperor wanted to free the sergeant, but as he had been 
executed, it was impossible.

wa'leS Sogh muHlu'.
Tomorrow the lieutenant will be executed.

wa' nem Sogh tlhabmoH neH rewbe', 'a muHlu'pu'mo' DuHbe'.
A year from now, a citizen will want to free the lieutenant, but as he will 
have already been executed, it will be impossible.

cha'leS Sa' muHlu'lI'.  wejleS Heghpu' Sa'.
Two days from now the general will be being executed.  By the next day he 
will have died. [the death might take all day, it's not clear, but he will 
be dead by the next day]

cha'Hu' 'aj muHlu'lI'. Two days ago the admiral was being executed.  wa'Hu' 
Hegh.
Two days ago the admiral was being executed.  He died yesterday.

The following should only make sense if you understand that the TIME comes 
from the time markers, and -pu' only indicates what was or will be 
completed at that time.

yatlhpu'chugh be', ghaH ngejlaHbe' ropvam. yatlhbe'chugh be', QIHbe' rop.
'ach ngejpu'chugh 'ej yatlhchoH, ghuHom QIH.

vagh ben yatlh be'nI'lI'. wej ben not yatlhpu' be'nI'wI'.  wej ben 
be'nI'wI' ngej rop.    yatlhpu'mo' be'nI'lI', ngejbe'. cha' ben yatlhchoH 
be'nI'wI'.  ngejlu'pu'mo', ghIch Hutlh ghu.

Everything in that story happened in the past.  So why are some verbs 
marked -pu' and some not?