<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Great analysis. Great answer.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I thought I had an idea about the exception, but on second thought, it doesn’t work...</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{quv HIja’chuq}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are exceptions, and then there are EXCEPTIONS, and this one is an EXCEPTION.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Okay, on THIRD thought, it makes sense because it’s a command. There is no imperative prefix for the first person subject, no object, so it’s impossible to follow the rule about {-chuq} here. The only way to say “we/us” as an imperative (which always has the second person subject), if you mean singular you and singular me, is to use {HI-}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, the sentence translates as an imperative direct quote:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">“Honor.” Don’t tell me that/Don’t discuss that with me.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, yes, it breaks the rule, but there’s no way to say this without breaking the rule. Maybe {ja’chuq} is a fossilized root verb, but it doesn’t have to be in order to explain why this is so exceptional.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 6, 2020, at 9:26 AM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><p class="">I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will
point out a couple of things.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2c+X281gNv60z1sq73EXB5sh8gTO=sAs7X09jQvhfPESXg@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a
subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ?
In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the
{-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ?</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">The text says the no-object prefix must be used with the
reflexive suffixes. It doesn't say anything about whether there
can be an object. One might reasonably conclude that requiring a
no-object prefix also implies no object, but it doesn't actually <i class="">say</i>
that.<br class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2c+X281gNv60z1sq73EXB5sh8gTO=sAs7X09jQvhfPESXg@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes
with the reflexive suffixes, I don't see any problem with it. I
have recently speculated that the requirement to use no-object
prefixes may not be about restricting which prefixes may be used
with reflexive suffixes but about telling the reader which
prefixes typically make sense with them.</p><p class="">"Okay, I want to say <i class="">We see ourselves.</i> <i class="">See</i> is <b class="">legh,</b>
<i class="">reflexive</i> is <b class="">-'egh, </b>and <i class="">we</i> is <b class="">maH.</b>
What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the chart... Hey, there's
no <i class="">we–us</i> prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it says here to
use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."<br class="">
</p>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAP7F2c+X281gNv60z1sq73EXB5sh8gTO=sAs7X09jQvhfPESXg@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
</pre>
</blockquote><p class="">Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object
prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in<i class="">
paq'batlh:</i> <b class="">quv HIja'chuq</b><i class=""> Don't speak to me of
honor!</i> Some people question the strength of this as an
example, though, because <b class="">ja'chuq</b> appears in the dictionary
as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a root+prefix
that has fossilized into its own root.</p><p class="">I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's
prefixes, simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or
sensible.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>