p. 145: {nItlhej qempa'QeH} → what is plural of qempa'QeH? De'vID: This isn't an error, but just something I wanted to know out of curiosity. As I understand it, the plural of {qempa'} is the inherently plural (but grammatically singular) {no'}. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this.) {qempa'QeH} looks like it originated from {qempa' QeH}. So if one were to pluralise {qempa'QeH}, would the plural be *{no'QeH}? Or is it a fossilised form? In that case, could one say {qempa'QeHpu'} or would it be {qepma'pu'QeH}? (I assume the plural suffix would be {-pu'} and not {-mey} because {qempa'QeHlI'} (not {-lIj}) is used on p.109). MO:
{qempa’QeH} is indeed a fossilized form, so don’t worry about its etymology (though you are correct about {no’} vs. {qempa’}). Generally speaking, you wouldn’t pluralize {qempa’QeH}. The word doesn’t refer to an individual, but to a unique group, the “proudest spirits of Gre’thor” (p. 108). There aren’t two groups of proudest spirits. I suppose you could write a story about the mirror universe where the {qempa’QeH} of one universe encounter the {qempa’QeH} of the other, so there would be two {qeppa’QeH}s. In that case, I’d go with {-pu’}. But otherwise, the plural isn’t likely to come up.
(end of message) -- De'vID