[Tlhingan-hol] Semantic roles with -moH... again

[Robyn Stewart]

My opinion:

>'ach chay' {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} DaQIj?
>
>QeS 'utlh:
> > Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS
> > Kahless united the tribes of Kronos (paq'batlh p.179)
>
>qaStaH nuq jay'?
>
>chay' mu'tlheghvam chenlu'?

It took me a moment to figure out what the matter could be, because 
the sentence seems so natural, and then I saw the apparent violation 
of the prefix for {-chuq}. I think it's fine, and I think that's 
because {-moH} rewires the sentence. Seeing the order of a sentence 
reverse when adding {-moH} is nothing new.

Qong Qang.
Qang vIQongmoH.

Just as {qarIQ} is nonsense and {qarIQmoH} is unremarkable, {muvchuq} 
can't take an object but {muvchuqmoH} practically requires one. Yup, 
it violates TKD 4.2.1, but it's very easy for me to see this as 
something that isn't in section 4.2.1 because matlh/MO didn't think 
of it at the time. If it were a known rule, I'd probably leave it out 
the first time I explained {-chuq/-'egh} to a newcomer anyway.

I'm quite delighted there is canon to support it, because otherwise 
I'd have to apologize for doing it unconcernedly.

And now I'm going to stop responding to these threads until I have a 
better grasp of canon myself. If you see me pontificating on these 
things again, quiz me on Skybox.

- Qov