[tlhIngan Hol] tuQ and tuQmoH difference

[De'vID]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 03:23, Daniel Dadap <daniel at dadap.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 19:53, 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.*
>
>
> I actually wonder if HIpwIj jItuQ'eghmoH might be how this could be
> reconciled with the prefix trick, if we indulge ourselves in some
> speculation to extrapolate the prefix trick to verbs with a type one
> suffix. What we know about the prefix trick is that it uses a verb prefix
> that doesn’t agree with the direct object, and the disagreement uses the
> form that would be used if the indirect object were in the direct object
> position. What we know about type one suffixes is that they take no-object
> prefixes.
>

This was also exactly what was proposed by {ghunchu'wI'} the last time it
came up:
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00080.html

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190220/6c7b73b6/attachment-0003.htm>