<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/6/2022 8:44 AM, Iikka Hauhio
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MeoWHF0ljuNND-aYBP0XwzgNuXNd49wAZBCeVSYypz0WT4VbsWDMkia3eEsFWVzDy8kDuXfsF_-gpHnd14HJfdX9cXYXQIKD7kB4NiNhvK0=@protonmail.com">
<div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">De'vID:</span><br>
</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;">
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:-apple-system,
BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto,
Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue",
sans-serif">What you wrote was "a verb describing a state".
This has a specific meaning in TKD. Verbs describing a state
or quality behave differently than states describing
actions.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:-apple-system,
BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto,
Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue",
sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<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">You're equivocating between different meanings
of words like "state" and "event" to make your case. Those
words have specific meanings in the context of linguistics.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"></span><span style=""><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">You misunderstood me. "Stative verb"
is a term used in linguistics, not specific to Klingon. SuStel
has previously used this term a lot (see for example Discord
#language-chat 26.3.), and I'm using it similarly in this
discussion.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>He hasn't misunderstood you. He is specifically invoking the word
"state" as it is used in <i>The Klingon Dictionary</i> and
distinguishing it from the word "stative" as used generally in
linguistics. My argument all along has been about what I'm calling
"quality verbs," which is what TKD calls "verbs expressing a state
or quality," and I've been calling them that to try to avoid
confusion with "stative" verbs, because they were never the
subject of what I was talking about. But you've insisted on
talking about them.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MeoWHF0ljuNND-aYBP0XwzgNuXNd49wAZBCeVSYypz0WT4VbsWDMkia3eEsFWVzDy8kDuXfsF_-gpHnd14HJfdX9cXYXQIKD7kB4NiNhvK0=@protonmail.com">
<div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">My point is not to discuss the
grammar but the semantics. <i>Semantically</i> verbs like <b>neH</b> and
<b>ghung</b> are stative as they both describe a state instead
of an action.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, I agree: both are "stative." Only one is what Klingon calls
"state or quality." We have evidence in Klingon that perfective
can appear on stative verbs that are not quality verbs. We have no
evidence in Klingon that perfective can appear on quality verbs.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MeoWHF0ljuNND-aYBP0XwzgNuXNd49wAZBCeVSYypz0WT4VbsWDMkia3eEsFWVzDy8kDuXfsF_-gpHnd14HJfdX9cXYXQIKD7kB4NiNhvK0=@protonmail.com"><font
face="arial" color="#222222">Yes, <b>neH</b> is an "action" in
the sense that you can use perfective aspect with it. So while <i>semantically
</i>stative, it can be<i> syntactically</i> an action. This is
my main argument: stative verbs can be in the perfective aspect
meaningfully.</font></blockquote>
<p>But that is not the topic of conversation. What started this off,
and what I've been talking about, is whether perfective can appear
on a quality verb, and what it would mean.</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MeoWHF0ljuNND-aYBP0XwzgNuXNd49wAZBCeVSYypz0WT4VbsWDMkia3eEsFWVzDy8kDuXfsF_-gpHnd14HJfdX9cXYXQIKD7kB4NiNhvK0=@protonmail.com">
<div style=""><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14px;
color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">Both I and SuStel have many times
said that we don't think that it is <i>syntactically</i> forbidden
to add <b>-pu'</b><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>to a
quality verb (compare to eg. adding aspect to a verb that has
<b>'e'</b> as object: that is syntactically forbidden even
when it makes sense). What we are discussing here is whether
using perfective aspect is <i>meaningful</i>. Therefore, it
doesn't matter what syntactic feature the words we discuss
have.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, there is no known rule prohibiting a perfective suffix on a
quality verb. Yes, what we are discussing here is whether using
perfective aspect on a <i>quality verb</i> is meaningful. What we
are <i>not</i> discussing is whether perfective aspect is
meaningful on a <i>stative verb.</i> We already know the answer
to that: yes, stative verbs that are not quality verbs have been
seen with perfective on them. They are actions in Klingon, not
qualities.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I do not accept the argument that because Klingon allows one kind
of stative verb to have perfective that it must necessarily allow
all kinds of stative verbs to have perfective. In Klingon, the
significant distinction between words is whether a word is an
"action" or a "quality." In Klingon, <b>HoH, Qong, </b>and<b>
neH</b> are all considered actions. The semantic distinction
between "event" and "state" does not appear to have any impact on
Klingon grammar in this context.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>