[tlhIngan Hol] prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Jul 6 06:26:01 PDT 2020

I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will point out a 
couple of things.

On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a
> subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ?
> In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the
> {-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ?

The text says the no-object prefix must be used with the reflexive 
suffixes. It doesn't say anything about whether there can be an object. 
One might reasonably conclude that requiring a no-object prefix also 
implies no object, but it doesn't actually /say/ that.

> Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?

Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with 
the reflexive suffixes, I don't see any problem with it. I have recently 
speculated that the requirement to use no-object prefixes may not be 
about restricting which prefixes may be used with reflexive suffixes but 
about telling the reader which prefixes typically make sense with them.

"Okay, I want to say /We see ourselves./ /See/ is *legh,* /reflexive/ is 
*-'egh, *and /we/ is *maH.* What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the 
chart... Hey, there's no /we–us/ prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it 
says here to use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."

> So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?

Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object prefixes. 
But we have one canon violation of that rule, in/paq'batlh:/ *quv 
HIja'chuq*/Don't speak to me of honor!/ Some people question the 
strength of this as an example, though, because *ja'chuq* appears in the 
dictionary as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a 
root+prefix that has fossilized into its own root.

I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's prefixes, 
simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or sensible.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200706/64443d8c/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list