I don't think definitions matter here. The point is, everything in a hotkey file looks like this:

<something arg1 arg2 arg3>

And you're suggesting adding three things that look like this:

something ( arg1 )

You don't think that's inconsistent?

I guess all I was doing was using existing keys and adding the brackets to separate the state.
Yes but you're adding something that doesn't currently exist in HKN's syntax, and thereby creating an inconsistency.

it seemed like a good idea so that if you need to refer to whether a key is down or not in the future you would have the syntax
Yes, that's one of the advantages of your syntax. That's one of the reasons your syntax is used in industrial-strength programming languages like C and C++. But this doesn't change the fact that it's a different syntax from the one the program currently uses. The syntax must be consistent, so the only way I'd use your suggestion is if the syntax were switched over 100%. As I said in my last email, this would have advantages. But I think it also has the enormous disadvantage of appearing much more difficult to average people. That last consideration outweights all others, in my view.