On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 01:46, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

That seems like begging the question to me. If it doesn't make sense to ever put a perfective suffix on a non-action verb, as I believe, then there can never be a sentence with a non-action verb which "should have a perfective suffix but doesn't". The fact that no perfective suffix is found on a non-action verb in canon *is* evidence that the two normally don't go together, even if it doesn't prove that they can't.

Even though I believe the requirements of your test can never be satisfied, it just occurred to me that there are examples in canon which demonstrate why not.

{ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ?} "When will the water be hot?" (from TKD)

Of course, one can simply ask {ghorgh tuj bIQ?} to mean "when will the water be hot?" as a general question about the temperature of the water. But there is an implicit context here that the asker is expecting the water to have completed being hot. But {ghorgh tujpu' bIQ} doesn't make sense, because {tuj} (being hot) is not an event, action, or process. {tujchoH} (becoming hot) is, though.

It was explained at qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch that {ngI'chu' muD} indicates that the air pressure is correct. To indicate that this is the result of a process, one might use {ngI'choHchu'pu' muD}. Note that the former wasn't {ngI'chu'pu'}, and the latter has a {-choH}. I believe this is because {-pu'} doesn't make sense on a state (the air pressure is correct), whereas it does make sense on a process (the air pressure becoming correct).

Of course, this doesn't *prove* that {-pu'} can't be put on a verb expressing a quality or state. I can't think of any quality verb where it makes sense to say it was "completed", without first turning that verb into an action (with {-choH} or {-moH} or whatever). (This includes {rop}, which both SuStel and I have explained doesn't make sense with {-pu'}, or at least doesn't mean what you claim it does.)

You asked for examples of a sentence that should have a perfective suffix but doesn't, but the point is that no verb of state or quality can be a completed action, so what you're asking for can't exist (except as an error). But where we have a state or quality which is completed (as a result of a process), we do have examples of {-pu'}, but they are always accompanied by {-choH}. ({jIropchoHpu'} has a perfectly sensible meaning, for example, for "I'm sick, I've completed the process of getting sick".)

De'vID