How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction?
> Say''eghmoH SoS makes sense. A mother makes herself clean. The puq as an object there doesn’t. But I guess it does fit the
> pattern with muvchuqmoH.
In which case it would mean, "The mother makes the child clean themself."
What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that
way?
> Isn’t -'eghmoH already the recommended way to make a command out of a verb of quality? If it works for a command, I feel like
> it should work in the example above too.
Good point. That is strong evidence for this pattern.
And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that?
What do you think of using it that way?
> That seems fine to me if you think of it as rIQmoH with a -chuq, in contrast to thinking of muvchuqmoH as muvchuq with a -moH.
> I think the dual possibilities are a consequence of the strict ordering of the suffixes.
It's the {-moH} itself that seems to be causing the dual possibilities. When we use a {-moH} on a verb that does not have an object, the subject of that verb slides into the object position. But when we use a {-moH} on a verb that does have an object,
the object of that verb stays the object and the subject of that verb apparently gets marked with {-vaD}. Thus most verbs with {-moH} have at least the potential of two objects. But since the type 1 suffix does not appear as an actual object, the question
is which one of the objects is the type 1 suffix trying to fulfill?
Jeremy