The paq'batlh contains the sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} (p.179) implying that we can use {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of the main verb (which has become the object of the verb with {-moH}). Do we have other evidence
of the same?
Hmm. The meaning made enough sense that I didn’t question the grammar until you pointed it out, but it is indeed an interesting construction. I too am curious if other similar examples exist.
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.
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.
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.