On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 16:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 8/18/2020 9:57 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
'a wotvam DeltaHvIS 'oqranD, qatlh QIjlaw'ghachvam 'otHa'pu' ? qatlh
maHvaD {Qeqchuq} QIjchu'pu'be' ?

chaq not maSov..
I suspect he was thinking: Qeq means aim, and I'm going to generalize that orient something. That means the subject of the verb has to be "aiming" the object, so the thing faced has to be the locative. But to talk about someone or something "facing" something else, someone needs to cause the object to be oriented toward the target? Who is the subject? Mostly, when you talk about someone facing something, no one is making someone else face something, the object makes itself face something. That's reflexive, and the two reflexive suffixes are -'egh and -chuq. So someone can face themselves at something, or plural someones can—OH LOOK, A SQUIRREL!

In other words, I don't think he considered whether -chuq is actually useful. I think he only considered the syntax, that the object is also the subject.

I think he might've intended that {Qeq} is used with {-chuq} to indicate that two people (or things) face each other, either without having thought about how that doesn't really follow from the parts or forgetting to explain that it's an idiom or fossilised expression or whatever. I know that he says that {-Daq} marks the thing or person being faced, and that still works for {-'egh}. When he says "with this meaning", I read it as indicating "the face/orient meaning of {Qeq} rather than the aim [a weapon] meaning", and facing (oneself) towards something and two (or more) people or things facing each other are common occurrences. I think he might've been confused by the gloss "aim (at)". "Aim at each other" obviously means "face each other", right?

{SoHDaq jIQeq'egh} "I aim myself at you", "I face you"

{jIHDaq bIQeq'egh} "You aim yourself at me", "You face me"

?{maQeqchuq} "We aim at each other", "We face each other"

De'vID