jIH:
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ? SuStel: Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes
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. janSIy:
I do not support this use at this time.
I agree with your suggestion, and I wouldn't use the prefix trick with the reflexive suffixes either. In fact, I don't remember having ever used the prefix trick at all, since I don't like it. It is creepingly similar to the greek/english way of saying things, and I always prefered to avoid it. But I'm just trying to understand how things work, and as it seems there's something very basic which I'm missing here. ~ Qa'yIn