I meant, is {Quv} inherently singular or plural ? The way that {pIgh} "ruins" is inherently singular ? (if I remember correctly).

The question is really, does Quv represent multiple things packaged together in a single noun, or just one thing?

Imagine a map with a grid system on it. There is a point on the map. You can read the grid system to identify the exact position on the map. The reading you get is the Quv. Is that the reading or the sum of separate readings? In English, it depends on which word we use. If we call that coordinates, we're saying it's the combination of an x-coordinate and a y-coordinate (or whatever coordinate system you're using); it's plural because we're talking about a measurement with multiple components. If we call that position, we're saying it's the unique representation on the map as measured with the grid system. That's singular, because the components are not being described.

So we don't really know whether Quv is a collective noun or not, but it's not really important. The only time its collectiveness or not would be important is when someone wants to explicitly add a -mey to the word, which is usually optional anyway. I believe it is not a collective noun, because in addition to making perfect sense as a singular concept, we're not given a separate, singular form of it. There is no separate noun coordinate. I think the confusion simply comes from the way English uses the word. I think Quvmey refers to multiple points on a grid, and they don't have to be scattered all about.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name