On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

So, why couldn't we use the prefix trick with the {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
Mostly because of the rule that says they only allow no-object prefixes. But we have one canon violation of that rule, in paq'batlh: quv HIja'chuq Don't speak to me of honor!

Should be {quv HIja'chuq*Qo'*}.

Some people question the strength of this as an example, though, because ja'chuq appears in the dictionary as a lexicalized word, so this may be an example of a root+prefix that has fossilized into its own root.

There's also {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} "Kahless united the tribes of Kronos", which doesn't violate the rule at first glance, but suggests an exception, since {Qo'noS tuqmey} is the object of {muvchuqmoH}. Even though a null prefix is used here, it's clearly indicating "he-them" rather than "no object" (the prefix just happens to be the same by coincidence). Presumably, Kahless himself can say *{Qo'noS tuqmey vImuvchuqmoH}. The implied exception to the "no object" prefix rule is that {-moH} changes the valency of the verb, thus allowing {-moH} to be used with an object.

For example, {quv ghoja'chuqmoHQo'} would mean "don't make us discuss honour".

De'vID