<div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">SuStel:</span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial;color:rgb(34, 34, 34)"><br></span></div><blockquote style="padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;margin:0px;border-left:3px solid rgb(200, 200, 200);font-family:Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;border-top-color:rgb(200, 200, 200);border-right-color:rgb(200, 200, 200);border-bottom-color:rgb(200, 200, 200);color:rgb(102, 102, 102)"><div><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;display:inline !important">for a quality, that's weird. Again, I'm not saying it's possible, but it's weird, and I'm still not aware of any evidence that Klingon does it</span></div></blockquote><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial;color:rgb(34, 34, 34)"></span><span style="display:inline !important"><br></span></div><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial;color:rgb(34, 34, 34)">I don't think it's weird. I've explained how such a word has a useful meaning. I think you too see how it could have a meaning, as you have multiple times described what it would mean, and I agree with your analysis. It seems the only reason you have to argue against this construct is that it is "weird" and doesn't fit to your personal model of how Klingon works.</span></span><br></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><br></span></div><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);"><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;display:inline !important">I don't think you can answer it just by declaring a yes or a no as Iikka is doing.</span><br></div></blockquote><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"></span><span style="display: inline !important;"><br></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">Please don't put words in my mouth. All I've said is that there is no intrinsic semantic distinction between a quality verb and a non-quality verb. There is a grammatical distinction: quality verbs can be used as "adjective attributes". That is the only canonical distinction there is between these two parts of speech.</span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><br></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important">All I've said is that 1) using perfective on quality verbs is both meaningful and useful 2) it isn't forbidden and 3) the lack of evidence is not proof of ungrammaticality.</span></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><br></span></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important">We cannot expect there to be a canonical sentence for every possible combination of words and suffixes, so just that there are not good data points doesn't mean anything. Instead, to support this kind of claim, one should find a sentence that should have a perfective suffix but doesn't, and argue that the lack of suffix is due to an unwritten rule.</span></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);display:inline !important"><br></span></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">One interesting canon sentence to consider is <b>vIneHpu' </b><i>I wanted them</i> that uses <b>-pu'</b> on <b>neH</b> which is a verb describing a state. While not an "adjective" like <b>rop</b>, it isn't an "action" either. If words like <b>neH</b> and <b>Sov</b> can have the perfective aspect, why wouldn't quality verbs too?</span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><br></span></div><div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio</span></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div class="protonmail_quote">
------- Original Message -------<br>
On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 19.40, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/5/2022 12:09 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>I would translate as follows:</p>
<p><b>Hogh vorgh jIrop.</b><i> I was sick last week.<br>
</i><b>Hogh vorgh jIroptaH.</b><i> I was sick all last week.</i></p>
<p>For a quality to be true over a period of time doesn't require <b>-taH.</b>
When you add <b>-taH,</b> what you're doing is expressing its
flow over time and saying that it was continuous. Lacking <b>-taH</b>
doesn't necessarily mean it was discontinuous; it just means that
you're not describing its flow over time. You're just identifying
a quality that applied.</p>
<p><b>Hogh vorgh jIroppu'</b> wouldn't describe getting sick, being
sick for a while, and stopping being sick. All that does happen
within the week by implication, but all the verb actually
expresses is a complete event of sickness.</p>
<p>If I say <i>I ran home,</i> it's true by implication that I
started to run, I spent some time running, and I finally stopped
running. But none of that is expressed in the sentence. All it
expresses is a complete event of running, without expressing any
internal flow of that event. That's what <b>Hogh vorgh jIroppu'</b>
is doing, and for a quality, that's weird. Again, I'm not saying
it's possible, but it's weird, and I'm still not aware of any
evidence that Klingon does it, just as a non-native English
speaker might not be aware that one cannot say <i>I am knowing
you.</i> It seems to follow the rules, so it should be allowed,
right? Not necessarily.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>Think of it rather this way: the "moment" isn't necessarily a
single instant. If I say <i>The United States won its
independence in 1776,</i> that's perfective. The winning's
internal flow isn't being described at all; it just happened and
was done. It didn't happen in just one singular instant; it
happened throughout 1776, but this sentence treats the entire year
as a single "moment." This is a common thing to do.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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’.}</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You could answer <b>Hogh vorgh jIrop</b><i> I was sick last
week.</i> The perfective is not required to make this meaning
clear.</p>
<p><br>
</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>
</div>