[Tlhingan-hol] Objects, direct and indirect

[SuStel]

On 11/24/2015 2:00 AM, De'vID wrote:
> QeS 'utlh:
>> Finally,
>> combining {qaqIp} and {choqIp} is not the prefix trick anyway, so talking
>> about combining concepts "using the prefix trick" just doesn't make sense at
>> all to me. I honestly just don't understand it.
>
> Does the transformation of {maHvaD quv wIja'} into {quv maja'chuq}
> make more sense?
>
> 1. the prefix trick lets us indicate the "indirect object" of the verb
> by using a verb prefix that treats it as though it were the "direct
> object"
> 2. when the subject and object are both {maH} and the subjects are
> acting on each other, it's expressed as {ma-} with {-chuq}
>
> To me, it does look just like an application of two rules together,
> which is not to say that that's how they would work together.
>
> Similarly:
> {maHvaD Qu'maj wIqawmoH} = *{Qu'maj maqawchuqmoH}

I also follow the logic here, and it's making my brain itch. When I see 
the prefix trick, my mind imagines an unstated indirect object off to 
the left in agreement with the prefix, but here I go off to the left to 
find... nothing. My mind moving to the left is hardly a grammatical 
proof, though!

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name