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

[janSIy .]

jatlh Qa'yIn:

> Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? I don't
> see a way any ambiguity could appear.

If there were a legitimate indirect object that you wanted to represent with a "disallowed" prefix on {-'egh} or {-chuq}, I would not have any problem reading that as the prefix trick.

> taj jInob'eghpu'
> I gave myself a knife

> taj nob'eghpu'
> he gave himself a knife
> they gave themselves a knife

> taj Sunobchuqpu'
> you gave each other a knife

> taj nobchuqpu'
> they gave each other a knife

The problem with these examples is that they are trying to represent the indirect object with {-'egh} or {-chuq} and it is not clear that we can do that.  Aside from very unusual examples like {ja'chuq} (which others have already discussed), I don't feel like we have any clear examples of this in canon.  I don't outright object to it existing in the grammar, but without clearer indication, I do not support this use at this time.

janSIy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200706/c567fe25/attachment-0015.htm>