read this :

Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
kahless united the tribes of kronos

..good for him ; but for the rest of us, why the {muvchuqmoH} takes an object ?

according to tkd, when the {-chuq} suffix is used, the verb prefix
must indicate "no object". that is the word which bears the {-chuq}
can't take an object. the ones that are {-chuq"ed"}, must be the
recipients of each others actions. they can't {-chuq} each other, and
then all of them together {-chuq} someone else too.

now, perhaps this sentence stands because we have the {-moH}, on the
{muvchuq} ; but even so, I can't bring myself to *feeling* the
combined meaning of {-chuq} {-moH} with that of a subject too.

Good catch! I think you may have just discovered a bit of supporting evidence for a new grammar exception. (For those who don't know, this sentence comes from paq'batlh.)

Apparently, the rules governing -chuq—that it is only used with plural subjects and that it always uses a no-object prefix—only apply when the semantic agents of the action (those who perform the action the verb describes) are the subjects of the verb. When something else is the subject—in this case the -moH tells us that the subject causes the verb instead of performing it—those rules are ignored.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name