mayqel qunenoS :
We know that we can use {latlhpu'} on its own, to say "others'. Example :
Ha'DIbaHvetlh luje'laH latlhpu' je. others are able to feed that animal too.
Can we use the {Hoch} "on its own", in a similar way ? Would you accept the following ?
Ha'DIbaHvetlh luje'laH Hochpu' all people are able to feed that animal
Ha'DIbaHvetlh luje'laH HochHompu' almost all the people are able to feed that animal
and an additional question just came to mind : Hochpu' can only mean "all people", or it can mean "everyone" as well (with the distinction between the two being made by the verb prefix of the preceding verb {je'})?
What is the difference between "everyone" vs. "all people"? {Hoch} "everyone, all (of)" is already intrinsically plural (but grammatically singular). E.g.: may' ngeb tIv Hoch Everyone enjoys a mock battle. CK QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch No one survived Khitomer ("Everyone died at Khitomer"). TKW rut yIHmey ghom Hoch Everyone encounters tribbles occasionally. TKW tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch Be the first to journey to the 24th century. STX There are a few such intrinsically plural words in Klingon: {negh} soldiers (sg. {mang}) {cha} torpedoes (sg. {peng}) {chuyDaH} thrusters (sg. {vIj} {'eDSeHcha} take-off/landing thrusters (sg. unknown) {lolSeHcha} attitude-control thrusters (sg. unknown) On the other hand, {latlh} "additional one, other one, another one" is a normal noun, and can be pluralized: Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey. ghoS tlhIngan SuvwI' maq. This yell ... serves to warn the other dead that a Klingon warrior is coming. S31 DaSwIj bIngDaq latlhpu' vItap. The rest I will grind beneath my boot. (STConst p.232) latlhpu' law' pIlmoHpu' lutvam [translation unavailable] PB In some ways {Hoch} could be considered a plural version of {vay'} "someone/anyone, something/anything" or {pagh} "no one, nothing". And like *{Hochpu'}, the forms *{vay'pu'} and *{paghpu'} have never been observed AFAIK. -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons