On 3/5/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we say: {tlhInganpu' romuluSnganpu' chevchuqmoH qeylIS}I don't think the sentence is meaningful. -chuq means the subject is plural and does the verb to each other. It doesn't work for the object.
But the {-moH} is important here. If the object of a {-moH}ed verb can be the subject of the action being {moH}ed, I think it could be meaningful in the same way {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} is. {qeylIS} is the singular subject of {muvchuqmoH}; the {tuqmey} are the plural object of {muvchuqmoH} which makes them into the plural subject of {muvchuq}.
Here we go again. In mayqel's proposed sentence, tlhInganpu'
and romuluSnganpu' are not the subjects of anything. qeylIS
is the only subject anywhere. tlhInganpu' and romuluSnganpu'
might be considered as entities that perform chevchuq, but
the verb isn't chevchuq, it's chevchuqmoH. The
suffix -chuq doesn't mean whoever is performing an action
performs it on each other; it means whoever is the subject does
the verb on each other. In this sentence, the subject is not
performing the action; he is causing the action to be performed.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name