<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/2/2019 11:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJLXU+fyn9u2G9od6zO3w5bPv-oofGvit0dnQxvfi9Reg@mail.gmail.com">SuStel:
<div dir="auto">> So go back to Hoch maH. Do you take the</div>
<div dir="auto">> set of us-es as each us performing the </div>
<div dir="auto">> action?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">ok, I understand this argument.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But here is what confuses me:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Couldn't the {maH} in the {Hoch maH} construction,
be understood as describing lets say ten klingons, thus making
the {maH} equivalent to a plural noun ?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If context made it clear, that there are only ten
klingons, then wouldn't we have: maH = ten klingons ?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So, if we can say {Hoch tlhInganpu'} to say "all
klingons", then why not say {Hoch maH} for "all (of) us" ?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Any given <b>maH</b> may happen to refer to ten Klingons, but it
is not grammatically equivalent to saying <b>wa'maH tlhInganpu'.</b>
<b>maH</b> and <b>tlhInganpu'</b> are grammatically very
different.</p>
<p>Watch that logic fail: If we can consider <b>maH</b> to refer to
ten Klingons, and if we can say <b>HoDpu' maH</b> <i>We are
captains,</i> then does it follow that we can say <b>HoDpu'
tlhInganpu'?</b></p>
<p>Please remember my conclusion. It's not "<b>Hoch maH</b> is
definitely wrong"; it's "<b>Hoch maH</b> can't be clearly derived
from grammatical rules." There are issues, confounded by a
superficial similarity to the English equivalent.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>