<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p>I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will
point out a couple of things.<br>
</p>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+X281gNv60z1sq73EXB5sh8gTO=sAs7X09jQvhfPESXg@mail.gmail.com">
<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>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>say</i>
that.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+X281gNv60z1sq73EXB5sh8gTO=sAs7X09jQvhfPESXg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>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>"Okay, I want to say <i>We see ourselves.</i> <i>See</i> is <b>legh,</b>
<i>reflexive</i> is <b>-'egh, </b>and <i>we</i> is <b>maH.</b>
What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the chart... Hey, there's
no <i>we–us</i> prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it says here to
use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+X281gNv60z1sq73EXB5sh8gTO=sAs7X09jQvhfPESXg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object
prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in<i>
paq'batlh:</i> <b>quv HIja'chuq</b><i> Don't speak to me of
honor!</i> Some people question the strength of this as an
example, though, because <b>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>I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's
prefixes, simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or
sensible.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>