[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

read this :

Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
kahless united the tribes of kronos

..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?

according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix
must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq}
can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the
recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and
then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.

now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the
{muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the
combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.

mop qIj