On 3/26/2019 10:26 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

But doesn't this reasoning mean that the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, is

wrong too ? Isn't the {tlhIngan maH! taHjaj!}, actually {tlhIngan maH!
taHjaj 'e'!} ?

I know that it is blasphemous to dare and question something which has
been celebrated as a feat of linguistic ingenuity.. I really do. But,
- holy sith ! -, I'm sure as hell, that if a mere mortal had come up
with this phrase, he would have been executed on the spot.

tlhIngan maH taHjaj is (a) a slogan, and (b) not canonical. As a slogan, it's not going to be careful to ensure everyone knows what the antecedent of its elided pronouns are. As a non-canonical sentence, it's not a data point in what can and cannot be said.

Once in a while, I think to myself “hey, it could also be parsed as {tlhIngan maHtaHjaj}!”. Then I remember that {-jaj} isn’t supposed to be combined with an aspect suffix (even though it sometimes apparently is). Then I forget again, and the cycle starts anew.