<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 02:54, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_3608770791883283467moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2019 7:38 PM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<pre class="gmail-m_3608770791883283467moz-quote-pre">On Feb 19, 2019, at 08:32, SuStel <a class="gmail-m_3608770791883283467moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank"><sustel@trimboli.name></a> wrote:
HIpwIj vItuQ'eghmoH
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="gmail-m_3608770791883283467moz-quote-pre">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>nIbpoH!</div><div><br></div><div>On a previous occasion when someone wrote almost this exact sentence (it was {HIp vItuQ'eghmoH}, no {-wIj}), it was you who pointed out this error. </div><div><br></div><div>Weirdly, I can't find your message on the KLI mailing list archive, nor my reply to it. <br></div><div><br></div><div>You had replied to this message by {QeS 'utlh}:</div><div><a href="http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00069.html">http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00069.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>In the missing message, you had written:</div><div>> Using -'egh or -chuq requires the no-object prefix, as per TKD 4.2.1. </div><div>> Presumably this also means it requires that there be no object.</div><div><br></div><div>And in my unarchived reply, I had written:</div><div>> 'ach chay' {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} DaQIj?</div><div><br></div><div>What appears to have happened is that your reply was addressed to "<a href="mailto:tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org">tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org</a>" instead of "<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org</a>", and nothing sent to the former address was archived, including my reply to you.</div><div><br></div><div>The thread once again picks up when {Qov} replies to me, but changed the email address back to "<a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org</a>" for some reason:</div><div><a href="http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00077.html">http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00077.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, {QeS 'utlh}'s reply to me also changed the address to the correct one, and was archived:</div><div><a href="http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html">http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/February/msg00081.html</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>You can sort of see parts of what had been in the missing messages based on the quoted portions, but some parts are missing. The fact that there are holes in the archive is disconcerting (you know, for future historians of the KLI).</div><div><br></div><div>SuStel (continuing):</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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></div><div>The thread I quoted raises this example:</div><div><div>{Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS}</div><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div>Presumably, whatever is going on with {-chuq} here applies to {-'egh} also, as they're the same suffix type. If you go back through that thread from Feb. 2012, some people argued that {-moH} changes the behaviour of {-'egh} and {-chuq} so that an object becomes allowed. (This does seem to be what's happening, though it goes against the rules "as written" in TKD 4.2.1.)</div><div><br></div><div>There's also the very weird:</div><div>{quv HIja'chuqQo'}<br></div><div><br></div><div>Good luck making sense of that one.</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>