How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction?
Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the pattern with muvchuqmoH.
Two verbs to consider here are {tuQ} and {tatlh}. {tuQmoH} and {tatlh'egh} are lexicalised, so it's instructive to consider what {tuQ'eghmoH} and {tatlh'eghmoH} would mean.
{puqvaD Sut tuQ'eghmoH vav}
{pa'Daq puq tatlh'eghmoH SoS}
What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that
way?
{muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch} appears in the paq'batlh.
Isn’t -'eghmoH already the recommended way to make a command out of a verb of quality? If it works for a command, I feel like it should work in the example above too.
{yItaD'eghmoH} is in KGT for "Freeze yourself" (literally, as in "cause yourself to be frozen"), as opposed to {yItaD} which idiomatically means "cease moving!"
However, {yItamchoH} (from TKD) is not {yItam'eghchoHmoH}, which is probably for the better.
(Marc Okrand has also written {yIpIv} on a get-well card, though I don't know if he was channeling Maltz when he did so. The KLI also has {yIDoghQo'} as an example on its website rather than {yIDogh'eghmoHQo'}, but of course that's not a canon example.)
The sentence in KGT describing the {-'eghmoH} rule for imperatives with verbs of quality says it applies "generally", though it seems there are exceptions.
And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that?
What do you think of using it that way?
That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH. I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.
Are there actually two possibilities? What's an example of an ambiguous sentence?
--
De'vID