I think the main "problem" (not really a problem) is that the rule presented in TKD referred specifically just to V+chuq and it's true for that one. Marc Okrand probably really didn't take into account that the verb syntax changes with the addition of {-moH}. So his original wording was supposed to explain just how V and V+chuq differ, to explain what {-chuq} does. So in that way, we could either say you interpreted the rule in TKD too rigidly, or it was formulated without thinking of other valency-changing options. Both can be true at the same time.
I completely believe that Okrand wasn't considering the effects of -moH on a verb with -chuq or -'egh. That doesn't change what the rule says, and the example sentence violates that rule. Until now we've never had any evidence to suggest that both rules for these suffixes weren't absolute. So saying the rule obviously doesn't take into account using a verb with -moH is no different from what I've been saying, which is that the example violates the stated rules.
Reading "This suffix is used only with plural subjects... The
prefix set indicating 'no object' is also used when this suffix is
used" as requiring plural subjects and no-object prefixes is not a
too-rigid interpretation. The implications are clear. The subject
must be plural and a no-object prefix must be used. The example
sentence violates one of these rules and implies a violation of
the other (by having an object), which means that, if the example
is to be considered grammatical, the stated rules must be
wrong. "Wrong" includes "doesn't take into account using -moH."
No one has ever said anything about {-chuqmoH} or {-'eghmoH} because it was clear to everyone how they worked and it was probably never an issue to anyone.
Ha! Ha-ha-ha! That's a good one.
No way is that the reason. No one ever tries to use them
together, or if they do, they're told it's ungrammatical, or
questionable. Okrand's sentence goes AGAINST common wisdom on the
list. The history of horror and anger on this list regarding
everything -moH is a testament against that even being
remotely possible.
So, yes. {-moH} does change the syntax.
Adding -moH to a sentence that doesn't have -moH, and then rearranging the nouns to refer to the same situation, does change the syntax. Absolutely. I'm not talking about that. When constructing original sentences including -moH, one does not start with an un-moH'd sentence and add -moH to it.
The point is that the process of creating an original sentence
with -moH is no different than creating an original
sentence without -moH. You have a subject which is
performing the main action, regardless of whether that subject is
performing the "root" verb or not. You have an object which has
the main action performed on it, regardless of whether that object
is having the "root" verb performed on it or not. You put together
OBJECT VERB SUBJECT and call it a day. Syntax. This is how Okrand
seems to construct his sentences.
Now, exactly what that verb MEANS is the realm of semantics. If
it has -moH on it, it means the subject CAUSES the "root"
verb to happen. If it has -chuq on it, it means whoever
does perform the "root" verb (NOT necessarily the subject as TKD
states), must be plural and does it to each other. These
performers of the root verb may not even appear in the sentence! (muvchuqmoH
qeylIS Kahless causes [someone plural and unspecified] to
join each other; Kahless causes joining up) But
using these suffixes does not mean the basic OVS sentence, which
was constructed based on syntax, without reference to whether the
subject was an agent or a causer, without reference to whether the
object was an agent or a patient, has changed.
maleghchuqmoH. = 1 argument (causer=causee=seer=see), intransitive - "We make each other sleep."
The last sentence is the thing I raised in my previous message, and I could imagine not everyone agrees that it's possible. Prior to today, would you have not accepted sentences like {vIleghchuqmoH} or {jIQong'eghmoH}?
I would not have accepted vIleghchuqmoH I make them
see each other because it violates the rules in TKD about
the subject being plural and the verb prefix indicating no-object,
but I would have accepted jIQong'eghmoH I put myself to
sleep because it violates no rules. I would have accepted maleghchuqmoH
we make each other see (not sleep!) for the same reason.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name