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

[SuStel]

On 7/6/2020 10:04 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> Okay, on THIRD thought, it makes sense because it’s a command. There 
> is no imperative prefix for the first person subject, no object, so 
> it’s impossible to follow the rule about {-chuq} here. The only way to 
> say “we/us” as an imperative (which always has the second person 
> subject), if you mean singular you and singular me, is to use {HI-}.

I don't follow your language here. Imperatives don't have overt 
subjects. TKD doesn't make us guess how to prefix reflexive imperatives: 
it gives us explicit instructions in sections 4.2.1 and 4.1.2 that 
reflexive imperatives use *yI-* for singular commandees and *pe-* for 
plural commandees.

What imperatives don't have is a prefix to refer the commandee to do 
something to a second-person object. This is because that is handled by 
the reflexive suffixes.


> So, the sentence translates as an imperative direct quote:
>
> “Honor.” Don’t tell me that/Don’t discuss that with me.

That's also reasonable. If we suppose that the prefix trick can override 
the no-object reflexive rule, a proposition I have little problem with, 
then this means *HIja'chuqQo'*//equals*jIHvaD yIja'chuqQo'* or *jIHvaD 
peja'chuqQo'.* The only exception I have to this reading is that the 
style of /paq'batlh/ does not include single-noun sentences like *quv,* 
and quotation is a function of sentences-as-object. The word cannot be 
interpreted as a verb in the context in which it appears. I don't think 
this is what Okrand had in mind when he translated the sentence, but it 
works as well.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200706/dbe59ada/attachment-0016.htm>