jatlh Qa'yIn:
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? I don't see a way any ambiguity could appear.
If there were a legitimate indirect object that you wanted to represent with a "disallowed" prefix on {-'egh} or {-chuq}, I would not have any problem reading that as the prefix trick.
taj jInob'eghpu' I gave myself a knife
taj nob'eghpu' he gave himself a knife they gave themselves a knife
taj Sunobchuqpu' you gave each other a knife
taj nobchuqpu' they gave each other a knife
The problem with these examples is that they are trying to represent the indirect object with {-'egh} or {-chuq} and it is not clear that we can do that. Aside from very unusual examples like {ja'chuq} (which others have already discussed), I don't feel like we have any clear examples of this in canon. I don't outright object to it existing in the grammar, but without clearer indication, I do not support this use at this time. janSIy