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