SuStel:

> As with all noun-noun constructions, it's 

> the final noun in the series that 

> determines what "thing" you're talking 

> about. Here, maH is acting like a noun 

> and is the final noun. So the phrase ngIq 

> maH each of us individually is in the first

> person.

So, I guess one could say too {Hoch maH} for "all us".

So, I could say too {tlhIngan Hol wIparHa' Hoch maH}, for "we all like klingon".

Right ?

Maybe.

But what does Hoch maH actually mean? Sure, the English translation of Hoch and maH are all and us, but when you put them together, what do they mean? After all, you said we all instead of all we.

Hoch X means you take the set of X's and consider each one as separately doing the action. Hoch Xmey/Du'/pu' means you take the set of X's and consider them as doing the action collectively.

But what if X is a mass noun? Suppose you say Hoch bIQ. You're considering each water separately doing the action? You can say bIQ Hoch to mean the entirety of the water, but that's got Hoch as the "thing" of the noun-noun construction.

So go back to Hoch maH. Do you take the set of us-es as each us performing the action? Do you take the set of all us-es as performing the action collectively? Shouldn't you instead use maH Hoch the entirety of us, which is a third-person phrase?

Klingons may or may not say Hoch maH, but you can't clearly derive it by any grammatical rules we already know. The individual words translation individually into something we'd say in English, but that's not how translation really works.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name