I'm not going to try to solve all this for you, but I will point out a couple of things. On 7/6/2020 8:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
According to the above, when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used there is a subject, but how is it possible that there isn't an object as well ? In the {-'egh} case isn't the subject the object as well ? And in the {-chuq} case isn't the other party the object ?
The text says the no-object prefix must be used with the reflexive suffixes. It doesn't say anything about whether there can be an object. One might reasonably conclude that requiring a no-object prefix also implies no object, but it doesn't actually /say/ that.
Couldn't we use the prefix trick with {-'egh} and {-chuq} ?
Aside from breaking the rule about using only no-object prefixes with the reflexive suffixes, I don't see any problem with it. I have recently speculated that the requirement to use no-object prefixes may not be about restricting which prefixes may be used with reflexive suffixes but about telling the reader which prefixes typically make sense with them. "Okay, I want to say /We see ourselves./ /See/ is *legh,* /reflexive/ is *-'egh, *and /we/ is *maH.* What's the right prefix? Lemme look at the chart... Hey, there's no /we–us/ prefix listed! What do I do? Oh, it says here to use the no-object prefix with reflexive suffixes."
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!/ 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. I suggest avoiding playing tricks with the reflexive verb's prefixes, simply because it's so unclear whether it's allowed or sensible. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name