On 8/11/2017 1:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I wonder whether the following are correct.

wa' jaj maHegh Hoch
one day we will all die

wa' jaj maHegh HochHom
one day most of us will die

wa' jaj maHegh Hoch maH
one day all we will die

wa' jaj maHegh maH Hoch
one day all of us will die

wa' jaj maHegh HochHom maH
one day we almost all will die

wa' jaj maHegh maH HochHom
one day most of us will die

wa' jaj Hegh Hoch chaH
one day all they will die

wa' jaj Hegh chaH Hoch
one day all of them will die

wa' jaj Hegh HochHom chaH
one day they almost all will die

wa' jaj Hegh chaH HochHom
one day most of them will die

And I wonder whether there are canon examples of {Hoch} and/or {HochHom} used as subjects of a verb with the prefix {ma-}.

And whether there are canon examples of {Hoch} and/or {HochHom} placed before, or after pronouns.

People try to do these things all the time, because they're trying to reproduce the expressions used by English or some other language. But most of these violate the rule of rom, that verb prefixes must agree with subjects and objects. Yes, sometimes those rules are violated by Klingons under certain circumstances, but we humans should be making up our own circumstances.

wa' jaj maHegh Hoch
one day we will all die

Hoch is a third-person noun, not a first-person noun, so the verb prefix must agree with a third-person subject. Say either wa' jaj maHegh one day we will die or wa' jaj Hegh Hoch one day everyone will die. This goes for HochHom variants too.

While this is not positive evidence, I will point out that paq'batlh has

naDev Sughompu'
    'ej Qo'noS SuvwI'pu' Hem tlhIH
    qeylIS tIghmey'e'
DaH tIQoy...

Hear now,
    All of you here,
    Proud warriors of Kronos
The ways of Kahless...

The translator declined to say Hoch tlhIH or tlhIH Hoch for all of you.

wa' jaj maHegh Hoch maH/wa' jaj maHegh maH Hoch
one day all we will die

Assuming either of Hoch maH or maH Hoch is valid for all of us (as opposed to some of us or none of us), then this works. But I don't think we know that those are valid. Likewise with HochHom variants.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name