<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Just to clarify, if I wanted to say, “I was sick last week,” meaning that all week, I was sick, I’d say {Hogh vorgh jIroptaH}. I wouldn’t say {Hogh vorgh jIroppu’} unless I meant that I started getting sick last week, I was sick for a while, and I stopped being sick, all within the boundary of last week.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That perhaps brings up a condition that makes {-pu’} sensible on a stative verb. If the Time Stamp has a duration that completely contains the duration of the stative verb, I now see that this could make sense, given the model of the perfective as being an action (or state) that is “compressed” into the moment of its cessation, so the reference is to the cessation, not the duration.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the context was my awareness that you were gone all last week and I ask you why you are here now, you might reasonably answer {Hogh vorgh jIroppu’.} If, instead, I asked why you were gone last week, it might make less sense, since my question has less to do with the cessation of your illness than with the duration and your answer would not have addressed my question.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Am I getting warm yet in terms of my understanding of the Perfective?</div><br class=""><div class="">
<meta charset="UTF-8" class=""><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>pItlh</div><div><br class=""></div><div>charghwI’ ‘utlh</div><div>(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 5, 2022, at 11:13 AM, Iikka Hauhio <<a href="mailto:fergusq@protonmail.com" class="">fergusq@protonmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">I disagree that quality verbs cannot describe events.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">If we look at:</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><b class="">Hogh vorgh jIQongpu'</b></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><b class="">Hogh vorgh jIroppu'</b></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">In both cases, I'm looking back to two events: my sleep and my illnesss, both of which I consider as completed wholes, without inner structure. They were two events that happened last week. Sleeping and being ill are both biological conditions that my body has. Both only last for a certain period of time. Both can be described as events. It's a grammatical feature of Klingon that <b class="">ghu rop</b> is accepted and <b class="">ghu Qong</b> is not, but semantically they don't differ much.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio</div><div class="protonmail_quote">
------- Original Message -------<br class="">
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 18.00, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/5/2022 10:23 AM, Iikka Hauhio
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid rgb(200, 200, 200);
border-top-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); border-right-color:
rgb(200, 200, 200); border-bottom-color: rgb(200, 200, 200);
padding-left: 10px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);" class="">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; display: inline !important;" class="">I don't automatically
take every gloss that starts with<span class=""> </span></span><i style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;" class="">be</i><span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; display: inline !important;" class=""><span class=""> </span>as
proving a quality verb, so I'm not convinced<span class=""> </span></span><b style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;" class="">jIj<span class=""> </span></b><span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; display: inline !important;" class="">is one.</span><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="" class=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);" class=""></span><span style="display: inline
!important;" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div style="" class=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);" class=""><b class="">jIj</b> is used in <b class="">yuQjIjDIvI'
</b>etc. where it seems to be used adjectivally (Union of
cooperative planets). As it's a compound we cannot be sure
that its components can be used individually, but it's some
evidence for <b class="">jIj</b> being a quality verb.</span></div>
</blockquote><p class="">I said it was a bad data point, not that I have judged it to be
not a quality verb. Don't read more into my words than what I
said.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div style="" class=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);" class="">It should be noted that the "be
cooperative" meaning was given after the "cooperate" meaning.
I don't see why to publish this new gloss unless the reason
was to clarify that <b class="">jIj</b> indeed can be used as a
quality verb.</span></div>
</blockquote><p class="">That's possible. But given the initial gloss, that makes <b class="">jIj</b>
a bad data point for the question of using perfective on quality
verbs.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div style="" class=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);" class="">As for using perfective with the
quality verbs, I don't see why they'd work any differently
than other intransitive verbs. Why would <b class="">jIQongpu' </b><i class="">"I
was asleep" </i>be allowed, but <b class="">jIQuppu' </b><i class="">"I was
young" </i>not? Just as sleeping is a completed event, being
young is also a completed event. I was young, I can look that
as a completed whole.</span></div>
</blockquote><p class="">For the same reason that you can say <b class="">ghu Qup</b> but not <b class="">ghu
Qong.</b> Sleeping is an event; being young is not an event.
Being asleep is a state. The issue is more complicated for <b class="">Qong,</b>
because in English <i class="">sleep</i> is an event and <i class="">be asleep</i>
is a state. <b class="">jIQongpu'</b> would be most accurately translated
as <i class="">I slept</i> and would be used in a context of looking back
at a point where I engaged in the single act of sleeping, whose
flow over time is compressed. <b class="">jIQong</b> would be most
accurately translated in the past tense as <i class="">I was asleep</i>
and would be used in a context of describing my state at a
particular point in the past.</p><p class="">Anyway, the point here is that there is a dearth of perfective on
quality verbs in Klingon that may be significant. I'm not saying
outright that you can't put perfective on a quality, but I am
saying that it may be unusual and probably doesn't mean what you
think it means. If you're thinking that it means that at some
point in the past the subject had the quality and that point is
over now, that's not using perfective correctly. That's just past
tense. By using perfective on a quality, you're saying that the
expression of the quality includes not only the quality but the
completion of the quality, all in one "moment" (however long a
moment is in context).<br class="">
</p>
<pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
SuStel
<a href="http://trimboli.name/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</blockquote><br class="">
</div>_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>