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

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 23:46:28 PDT 2020

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:26, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> 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!*
Should be {quv HIja'chuq*Qo'*}.

> 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.
There's also {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} "Kahless united the tribes
of Kronos", which doesn't violate the rule at first glance, but suggests an
exception, since {Qo'noS tuqmey} is the object of {muvchuqmoH}. Even though
a null prefix is used here, it's clearly indicating "he-them" rather than
"no object" (the prefix just happens to be the same by coincidence).
Presumably, Kahless himself can say *{Qo'noS tuqmey vImuvchuqmoH}. The
implied exception to the "no object" prefix rule is that {-moH} changes the
valency of the verb, thus allowing {-moH} to be used with an object.

For example, {quv ghoja'chuqmoHQo'} would mean "don't make us discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200708/422111e5/attachment-0007.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list