> On p.156-157, there is this sentence:
> {quv HIja'chuqQo'}
> "Don't speak to me of honor!"
>
> According to TKD 6.2.4 (p.65), "The verb is made up of {ja'} /tell/, {-chuq} /each other/; thus, /confer/ is /tell each other./" However, in TKD 4.2.1 (p.36), it's stated of {-chuq} that "The prefix set indicating 'no object' is used when this suffix is used."
>
> The imperative prefix {HI-} indicates an object ("me"). But if a prefix indicating "no object" is used, then {quv} has no grammatical role and is just left hanging in the sentence.
>
> What's going on here? Has {ja'chuq} become a lexicalised verb meaning "discuss", which makes it possible to use with a prefix like {HI-}? Even so, the prefix is apparently incompatible with the object. Is this an example of the "prefix trick", on top of {ja'chuq} being a lexicalised verb? That is, if the sentence had been {quv HIjatlhQo'}, it could've been a shorthand for {jIHvaD quv yIjatlhQo'}.
>
> There's something strange that's going on with this sentence that I think requires clarification.

>>> I think rather than clarification it requires revision. I think the verb {ja'chuq}, glossed in TKD as "discuss, confer," was used inappropriately here. The "discuss" that {ja'chuq} is used for is when there are two (or more) people talking to each other, a back-and-forth conversation. In the sentence in the paq'batlh, no discussion of this kind is going on.  Molor is just telling Kahless not to do something; Kahless doesn't come back with a counterargument. Since there's no discussing (or conferring) going on, {ja'chuq} is the wrong verb.