[tlhIngan Hol] thoughts on the perfective {-pu'}

[Iikka Hauhio]

Everything you wrote applies to you as well as to me. I don't think we are different. There is something in the way we talk that irritates the other.

We both have a sense of justice and want to correct another if we think they are wrong. We both might talk about our theories as if they are facts and defend them strongly. These theories often have a lot of fuzzy and ill-defined concepts, which makes it easy for us to misunderstand each other, which makes us feel that we are misrepresented.

Several incidents have lead to mistrust, which amplifies these problems. I'm not sure how to fix this situation. Building trust is a difficult path, but one that we need to take.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 22.36, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 4/5/2022 2:52 PM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
>
>> Why is it that you are the only person I have problems with communicating.
>
> I'm not. I've seen you do the same things to others on Discord. A certain moderator has told you you do the same things on Discord.
>
>> I consider that insulting. I never misrepresent you intentionally.
>
> You do it EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I say X. You tell me I've said X-squared. I say I didn't say X-squared, I said X. You say X-squared is just X times itself, so how is that any different than X-squared? I say because X means one thing and X-squared means another. You say that X-squared is just X times itself, and if I didn't mean X-squared, why didn't I say so, and why am I getting angry at you when you're just trying to have a nice discussion?
>
> I'm tired of this conversation.
>
>> I might have misunderstood what you have said.
>
> I don't think you misunderstood me. I think you understood me just fine, disagreed with me, and tried to say my opinion was wrong because you said so. Up to that point, I'm fine — you're entitled to your opinion. I explain why I find your opinion unconvincing — i.e., you haven't provided any evidence. You repeat it, still without evidence, and turning my I-don't-think-it-works-this-way-but-maybe-it-would-work-like-this into "this cannot happen." (And before you start demanding citations, insisting that I put together a defense of this that you yourself wouldn't do the work to look into, this happened in your message where you began with, "I disagree that quality verbs cannot describe events.") And so on.
>
>> If this is the case, you could explain yourself in other words.
>
> I have explained myself umpteen times already. If you are genuinely interested in my opinions on the subject (I don't believe you are), and you genuinely didn't understand the first time, go back and think about it some more. People will less linguistic training than you understood me.
>
>> But it seems your mistrust is so great nothing I can do to convince you of this.
>
> Evidence will convince me.
>
>> You see malicious intent in every word I say, read them like the devil reads the bible and find every inconsistency there is to accuse me of. Please stop. It is rude and against the principle of charity.
>
> bIqIj, pubmeH balvaD jatlh 'un.
>
>> You have a tendency to write about your speculation like it's an established truth.
>
> A certain Discord moderator has recently leveled the same accusation against you multiple times.
>
> I, on the other hand, write with conviction when I have it, put in disclaimers all over the place to make the limits of my understanding and evidence plain, and back up my opinions with as many known facts and qualifications as I can find. My opinions change when I learn new things or someone brings up evidence that I hadn't considered.
>
> I, for instance, am the one who first pointed out that we lack any convincing examples of perfective on quality verbs, but I was also the one who brought up the jIj example, which you yourself mentioned in Discord the other day. I hadn't considered that, and it was good to consider it. But I also gave my reasons for rejecting it as evidence.
>
> You, on the other hand, just declared that you couldn't see why it wouldn't work. When telling you why I don't think it works, with all those qualifications and possibilities, with all the work I did, your response was just "Here's two words that I think are parallel." That's all well and good, but it ignores everything I did in response to your implied question, why couldn't it work? And it just spirals from there. bI'Ich; ghargh Darur.
>
>> I will respond to your messages I honestly disagree with and want to tell my opinion of. Please do not respond me back if you have nothing nice to say.
>
> You go right ahead. If you want to talk to me, or over me, do me the courtesy of genuinely trying to understand what I say before arguing against it.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220405/e247d20b/attachment-0016.htm>