jIjatlhpu' jIH:
if the bare verb was univalent to begin with (i.e. couldn't normally take
an object, like {Qong}, {QaQ}), then the derivative with {-'eghmoH}
probably cannot take an object either. How would one shoehorn an
explicit object into, say, {bel'eghmoH} "please oneself"?
mujangpu' SuStel, jatlh:
It's not a question of valency, it's a question of syntactic roles. What is
having something done to it? That's your object.
I think we're saying the same thing in two different ways. The two agreement slots of a verb (and thus its valency) correspond to the syntactic roles of subject and object in any case. All I'm getting at is that the way {-'egh} and {-moH} together affect the structure of verb agreement (and therefore syntactic roles) should imply that if you can't add an object to a bare verb {X}, you probably can't add one to the verb {X-'eghmoH} either. Do you disagree? QeS 'utlh