On 10/2/2019 11:15 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
So go back to Hoch maH. Do you take the set of us-es as each us performing the action?
ok, I understand this argument.
But here is what confuses me:
Couldn't the {maH} in the {Hoch maH} construction, be understood as describing lets say ten klingons, thus making the {maH} equivalent to a plural noun ?
If context made it clear, that there are only ten klingons, then wouldn't we have: maH = ten klingons ?
So, if we can say {Hoch tlhInganpu'} to say "all klingons", then why not say {Hoch maH} for "all (of) us" ?
Any given *maH* may happen to refer to ten Klingons, but it is not grammatically equivalent to saying *wa'maH tlhInganpu'.* *maH* and *tlhInganpu'* are grammatically very different. Watch that logic fail: If we can consider *maH* to refer to ten Klingons, and if we can say *HoDpu' maH* /We are captains,/ then does it follow that we can say *HoDpu' tlhInganpu'?* Please remember my conclusion. It's not "*Hoch maH* is definitely wrong"; it's "*Hoch maH* can't be clearly derived from grammatical rules." There are issues, confounded by a superficial similarity to the English equivalent. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name