DloraH:
> I read [Hoch maH] as " all the us's", "all the we's", as in multiple 
> groups.  It is not speaking of the entirety of a single group

I'm afraid I disagree.

If we say, for example, {Hoch vIghro'mey DIlegh}, we will understand "we see all the cats". All the cats our words concern.

Whether there is just a single group or more, that's unspecified. Though I doubt, someone's mind will go on to think that there may be multiple groups.

So, I don't think someone will understand, that there are multiple groups of cats, and the {Hoch vIghro'mey} is used to describe the entirety of these groups, taken together as a whole.

~ nI'ghma

On Jan 29, 2018 03:20, "seruq" <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I read [Hoch maH] as " all the us's", "all the we's", as in multiple groups.  It is not speaking of the entirety of a single group.

As for [maH Hoch], similar to the plural suffix, unless you need to remove ambiguity, then no need to use it.  Just use maH.

But I can see the possibility of it's use.

A:  mab wIlaj maH
B:  chaq bolaj tlhIH 'op neH
A:  maghwI' vIHoH, DaH wIlaj maH Hoch


- DloraH

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org