<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2016 10:41 AM, Rhona Fenwick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SG2PR0301MB09840EE14058C5701B13430FAA000@SG2PR0301MB0984.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Conversely, if the bare verb was univalent to begin with
(i.e. couldn't normally take an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}),
then the derivative with {-'eghmoH} probably cannot take an
object either. How would one shoehorn an explicit object into,
say, {bel'eghmoH} "please oneself"?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It's not a question of valency, it's a question of syntactic
roles. What is having something done to it? That's your object. If
you can't think of anything, then you can't add an object. It
can't be "self," because the suffix <b>-'egh</b> already says
that.<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>