[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[SuStel]

On 7/28/2016 3:10 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
> ja' André Müller:
>>>> No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it
>>>> was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to
>>>> anyone.
> ja' SuStel:
>>> Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.
>>>
>>> No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if
>>> they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable.
> ja' André:
>> Who tells them? You? ;)
> No, not him. In fact, SuStel regularly reminds people that they
> *should* use {-'eghmoH} when putting an imperative prefix on a verb
> expressing a state or quality.

Yes, let's limit this to *-chuq,* which has different rules than *-'egh.*

Clearly I can't produce a survey of the list's history, looking for 
objections to *-chuq* and *-moH* together, but I would point out that 
the original poster was confused at seeing *muvchuqmoH* take an object 
despite the rules in TKD. He could only cite a /feeling/ that it was 
wrong. Where did this feeling come from?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160728/3a4e0f48/attachment-0017.htm>