<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2016 3:10 PM, Alan Anderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFK8js0gO_dXM_xwKii48jFQDU9F8Nbjm65cE8KDrneVhv_4TA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">ja' André Müller:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it
was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to
anyone.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
ja' SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.
No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them together, or if
they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or questionable.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
ja' André:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Who tells them? You? ;)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
No, not him. In fact, SuStel regularly reminds people that they
*should* use {-'eghmoH} when putting an imperative prefix on a verb
expressing a state or quality.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yes, let's limit this to <b>-chuq,</b> which has different rules
than <b>-'egh.</b></p>
<p>Clearly I can't produce a survey of the list's history, looking
for objections to <b>-chuq</b> and <b>-moH</b> together, but I
would point out that the original poster was confused at seeing <b>muvchuqmoH</b>
take an object despite the rules in TKD. He could only cite a <i>feeling</i>
that it was wrong. Where did this feeling come from?<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>