[tlhIngan Hol] bIje''eghchugh vaj bIHegh

Daniel Dadap daniel at dadap.net
Mon Jun 11 17:23:59 PDT 2018

> On Jun 11, 2018, at 19:15, RE Andeen <eric.andeen at outlook.com> wrote:
> The way the reflexive (type 1) suffixes work is that they take a verb with a subject and then say that the object is the same as the subject. If you could negate only the reflexive suffix, not the verb-suffix combination, then how, exactly, is the object of the verb supposed to work, exactly?

Oh, that’s a really good point. I hadn’t considered that negating the reflexive suffix leaves the verb with no object, since the type one suffixes need to take no object prefixes. {bIje''eghbe'chugh} it is, then.

I guess third person subject and object combinations that take the zero prefix might leave open the possibility of “others but not self” with -'eghbe', but given that this interpretation is expressly not possible with any combination that takes an explicit prefix, I would imagine such an interpretation would be unnatural to the point of not being useful.

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list