<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2020 8:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLuj8N3pphY15Ef-nXYuTHD4=Roz+6t1fL3HxY2yEVUnA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">jIH:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I'm sorry for the silly-stupid-ridiculous question that I'm about to
ask.. But I can't understand how the rule about using only no-object
prefixes with reflexive suffixes is broken.
Suppose we write:
taj jInob'eghpu'
I gave myself a knife
or
taj manobchuqpu'
we gave each other a knife
How do the above examples break the rule in question ? Both the {jI-}
and the {ma-} are no-object prefixes. Obviously there's something very
basic which I don't understand, and this worries me.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Oh, no, those simply don't follow the prefix trick rule, which is
this: "When the indirect object ... is first or second person, the
pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person
object may be used."</p>
<p>Whether or not you think the subject of a reflexive verb can be
its indirect object, you haven't used prefixes which normally
indicate first- or second-person object.<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>