<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 08:56, 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 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2cKcPbbJp_FfetzOTR=-KU3mvRZTO1ho70hB7_j6ZMHUXw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">If we say:
{tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}
</pre></blockquote><p>I don't think the sentence is meaningful. <b>-chuq</b> means the
subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work
for the object.</p>
<p></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action being {moH}ed, 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><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p><b>tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' je chev qeylIS</b><i><br>
Kahless separates the Klingons and the Romulans.</i><br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That’s obviously a more sensible way to say the first meaning, but I still think the question is a valid one.</div></body></html>