[tlhIngan Hol] inherently plural nouns when they are implied

[D qunen'oS]

Suppose I'm telling the following story.

There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the
screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain
says:

"Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.."

Which of the two should I write?

QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH.

QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey.

So I guess the question is this:

When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but
in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term),
do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural?

Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written,
or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something
singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently
plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided?

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220601/4082229d/attachment-0015.htm>