<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 Mar 5, 2019, at 09:14, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2A1BFBD1-C4AF-4669-BC28-94ED97BC2627@dadap.net"><div>I think it
could be meaningful in the same way {<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Qo'noS
tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject
of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuq</span><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">mey} are the plural object of
{muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of
{muvchuq}.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, <b>tlhInganpu'
</b>and <b>romuluSnganpu'</b> are not the subjects of anything. <b>qeylIS</b>
is the only subject anywhere. <b>tlhInganpu'</b> and <b>romuluSnganpu'</b>
might be considered as entities that perform <b>chevchuq,</b> but
the verb isn't <b>chevchuq,</b> it's <b>chevchuqmoH.</b></p></div></blockquote><br><div>But how is this different from the {muvchuqmoH} example I cited above? {qeylIS} is the only subject in that sentence as well, and clearly he can’t {-chuq} all on his own in that sentence, either.</div></body></html>