[tlhIngan Hol] tuQ and tuQmoH difference

[Daniel Dadap]

> On Feb 19, 2019, at 08:32, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> HIpwIj vItuQ'eghmoH

I find this example interesting because it violates the rule of type one verb suffixes requiring a no object prefix. But if the open hand becomes a fist, the type one noun suffix seems to be behaving in a way similar to the prefix trick, to indicate a first or second person indirect object using a device normally used to indicate a direct object, in this case a type one verb suffix instead of a verb prefix.

I went back to the thread from a couple of months ago about using type one and type four suffixes together, because I felt like this would have probably come up in that thread. However, that doesn’t appear to have happened.

Is a situation like this attested in canon? A type one suffix being used on a verb to indicate a reflexive first or second person indirect object, with the same verb taking an object prefix to indicate a third person direct object? Actually, maybe it needn’t be restricted to a third person object.

Examples (I am intentionally not including translations because I’m curious how others read these, and don’t want to color others’ analyses with my own interpretation):

QIn vIngeH'egh.
nobmey bonobchuq'a'?
revuv'eghmoH.

The last one is probably stretching things a little too far.

Also, just to make my intentions clear so that they not be misunderstood, I am NOT making the claim that this construction is grammatical, nor am I asking anybody else to make such a claim. I am commenting on an interesting utterance that I encountered outside of canon with my own analysis, and am soliciting analysis and commentary from others who also find the construction interesting. I am also asking if such a construction has indeed been attested in known canon, as I have yet to achieve the mastery of recall/lookup of canon materials that others on this list seem to possess.