[tlhIngan Hol] muvchuqmoH. seriously ?

[Alan Anderson]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:20 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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?

He didn't say he had a feeling that it was wrong. He said he couldn't
make himself feel the meaning of {-chuq} and {-moH} combined along
with a subject.

I would suggest that this comes from reading the rules as prescriptive
and absolute, and not having had enough practice using (and thinking
in) it yet. Speaking the language conversationally for long enough to
have an internalized "sense" for how things work gives slightly
different rules in practice, and ends up with prioritizing rules so
that some of TKD's statements of "always" and "never" have regular
exceptions. Here, the higher-priority "rule" involves the way {-moH}
makes what would have been the verb's subject into its object. Instead
of {muvchuq} being what things do, {muvchuqmoH} is what is done to
them. In the first example, the subjects join each other. In the
second, something else makes the objects join each other. It's just
like {bel} and {belmoH}, or {Qong} and {QongmoH}.

-- ghunchu'wI'