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-}.

I don't follow your language here. Imperatives don't have overt subjects. TKD doesn't make us guess how to prefix reflexive imperatives: it gives us explicit instructions in sections 4.2.1 and 4.1.2 that reflexive imperatives use yI- for singular commandees and pe- for plural commandees.

What imperatives don't have is a prefix to refer the commandee to do something to a second-person object. This is because that is handled by the reflexive suffixes.

So, the sentence translates as an imperative direct quote:

“Honor.” Don’t tell me that/Don’t discuss that with me.

That's also reasonable. If we suppose that the prefix trick can override the no-object reflexive rule, a proposition I have little problem with, then this means HIja'chuqQo' equals jIHvaD yIja'chuqQo' or jIHvaD peja'chuqQo'. The only exception I have to this reading is that the style of paq'batlh does not include single-noun sentences like quv, and quotation is a function of sentences-as-object. The word cannot be interpreted as a verb in the context in which it appears. I don't think this is what Okrand had in mind when he translated the sentence, but it works as well.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name