On Feb 19, 2019, at 19:53, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 2/19/2019 7:38 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

On Feb 19, 2019, at 08:32, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

HIpwIj vItuQ'eghmoH

I find this example interesting because it violates the rule of type one verb suffixes requiring a no object prefix.

You're right; I probably goofed with that one. It probably needs to be jIHvaD HIpwIj vItuQmoH.

I actually wonder if HIpwIj jItuQ'eghmoH might be how this could be reconciled with the prefix trick, if we indulge ourselves in some speculation to extrapolate the prefix trick to verbs with a type one suffix. What we know about the prefix trick is that it uses a verb prefix that doesn’t agree with the direct object, and the disagreement uses the form that would be used if the indirect object were in the direct object position. What we know about type one suffixes is that they take no-object prefixes.