<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Feb 19, 2019, at 19:53, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2019 7:38 PM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:E07A2F83-7114-4B23-A0A2-195D9E312A9E@dadap.net">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Feb 19, 2019, at 08:32, SuStel <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true"><sustel@trimboli.name></a> wrote:
HIpwIj vItuQ'eghmoH
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I find this example interesting because it violates the rule of type one verb suffixes requiring a no object prefix.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>You're right; I probably goofed with that one. It probably needs
to be <b>jIHvaD HIpwIj vItuQmoH.</b></p>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I actually wonder if HIpwIj jItuQ'eghmoH might be how this could be reconciled with the prefix trick, if we indulge ourselves in some speculation to extrapolate the prefix trick to verbs with a type one suffix. What we know about the prefix trick is that it uses a verb prefix that doesn’t agree with the direct object, and the disagreement uses the form that would be used if the indirect object were in the direct object position. What we know about type one suffixes is that they take no-object prefixes.</div><div><br></div><div>So if you have a no-object prefix with a type one suffix which normally indicates that the subject is also the direct object (I don’t know if type one suffixes *actually* indicate this, but this is my own personal interpretation of what they do), but have something in the direct object position that contradicts the prefix on the verb, then hypothetically that could be a way to use a type one suffix to indicate a reflexive *indirect* object rather than a reflexive *direct* one.</div><div><br></div><div>To rewrite the examples from my previous message:</div><div><br></div><div>QIn vIngeH'egh -> QIn jIngeH'egh</div><div>nobmey bonobchuq'a'? -> nobmey Sunobchuq'a'?</div><div>revuv'eghmoH -> tlhIH mavuv'eghmoH</div><div><br></div><div>(That last one was bad before and it looks even worse now.)</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>I think there's canon of another violation like this, but I don't
want to go claiming it's definitely allowed. I don't remember what
the canon is, though.</p></div></blockquote><br><div>Yeah, there are plenty of weirdnesses in canon that I find interesting and enjoy wondering about but wouldn’t emulate.</div></body></html>