[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[De'vID]

On 28 July 2016 at 08:45, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's exactly it: {-chuq} and {-moH} together.

Consider any verb which doesn't take an object, say {jor}.

{jor bIH} "they explode"
{bIH vIjormoH} "I explode them", "I cause them to explode"

The same thing is happening here with {muvchuq}.

{muvchuq chaH} "they join each other"
{chaH vImuvchuq} "I unite them", "I cause them to join each other"

It's a fairly straightforward interaction of two verb suffixes.

-- 
De'vID