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

[mayqel qunen'oS]

jIH:
> Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
SuStel:
> Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes

I'm sorry for the silly-stupid-ridiculous question that I'm about to
ask.. But I can't understand how the rule about using only no-object
prefixes with reflexive suffixes is broken.

Suppose we write:

taj jInob'eghpu'
I gave myself a knife

or

taj manobchuqpu'
we gave each other a knife

How do the above examples break the rule in question ? Both the {jI-}
and the {ma-} are no-object prefixes. Obviously there's something very
basic which I don't understand, and this worries me.

janSIy:
> I do not support this use at this time.

I agree with your suggestion, and I wouldn't use the prefix trick with
the reflexive suffixes either. In fact, I don't remember having ever
used the prefix trick at all, since I don't like it. It is creepingly
similar to the greek/english way of saying things, and I always
prefered to avoid it.

But I'm just trying to understand how things work, and as it seems
there's something very basic which I'm missing here.

~ Qa'yIn