[tlhIngan Hol] tuQ and tuQmoH difference

[De'vID]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 02:54, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 2/19/2019 7:38 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 08:32, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> <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.
>
> You're right; I probably goofed with that one. It probably needs to be *jIHvaD
> HIpwIj vItuQmoH.*
>
nIbpoH!

On a previous occasion when someone wrote almost this exact sentence (it
was {HIp vItuQ'eghmoH}, no {-wIj}), it was you who pointed out this error.

Weirdly, I can't find your message on the KLI mailing list archive, nor my
reply to it.

You had replied to this message by {QeS 'utlh}:
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00069.html

In the missing message, you had written:
> Using -'egh or -chuq requires the no-object prefix, as per TKD 4.2.1.
> Presumably this also means it requires that there be no object.

And in my unarchived reply, I had written:
> 'ach chay' {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} DaQIj?

What appears to have happened is that your reply was addressed to "
tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org" instead of "tlhIngan-Hol at kli.org",
and nothing sent to the former address was archived, including my reply to
you.

The thread once again picks up when {Qov} replies to me, but changed the
email address back to "tlhIngan-Hol at kli.org" for some reason:
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00077.html

Similarly, {QeS 'utlh}'s reply to me also changed the address to the
correct one, and was archived:
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html

You can sort of see parts of what had been in the missing messages based on
the quoted portions, but some parts are missing. The fact that there are
holes in the archive is disconcerting (you know, for future historians of
the KLI).

SuStel (continuing):

> I think there's canon of another violation like this, but I don't want to
> go claiming it's definitely allowed. I don't remember what the canon is,
> though.
>
The thread I quoted raises this example:
{Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}

Presumably, whatever is going on with {-chuq} here applies to {-'egh} also,
as they're the same suffix type. If you go back through that thread from
Feb. 2012, some people argued that {-moH} changes the behaviour of {-'egh}
and {-chuq} so that an object becomes allowed. (This does seem to be what's
happening, though it goes against the rules "as written" in TKD 4.2.1.)

There's also the very weird:
{quv HIja'chuqQo'}

Good luck making sense of that one.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190220/a4e8cb14/attachment-0002.htm>