jIjatlh vIneH: "we see three targets".

DuH wa':

wej ray' wIlegh

DuH cha':

wej ray' DIlegh

nuq 'oH DuH lugh'e' ?

DaH.. chaq jatlhqang vay': <<< < wej DoS DIlegh > yIlo'. >>>

'a {DoS} 'oHbe' QInvam meq'e'; inherently plural nouns 'oH QInvam meq'e'.

My answer to this question is the same as usual: if there's canon suggesting an answer, consider how significant the evidence is. If there is no canon suggesting an answer, we don't know the answer. I do not have the time right now to do an extensive search. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

For my money, I'd go for wej ray' wIlegh. The targets are plural, so we use ray' instead of DoS, we count them with wej, and we treat the whole thing as grammatically singular with wI-.

But I've noticed something interesting about how TKD presents plurals. It doesn't say -pu', -Du', -mey are the plural suffixes but they're optional. It says "plurality is indicated by a pronoun, whether a verb prefix... or a full word..., or by context." After a couple of paragraphs, it then says "it is never incorrect to add a plural suffix to a noun referring to more than one entity..."

This is interesting because it presents Klingon plurals as not the default means of expressing plurality. Pronouns (including words and prefixes) are, followed by context, and only then followed by suffixes. But this is never the way we teach plurals: we always teach the suffixes, and THEN we say they're optional. We encourage their use by default, only dropping them when everything is clear. I wonder if this has been the wrong approach. It might be appropriate to use plural suffixes a lot less than we do.

I'm sure an examination of canon would show tons of plural suffixes where they're simply not needed, and the idea of non-suffixed nouns being the plural default is not supported by the evidence. But all the same, it may be a good idea not to take the "use a suffix, but it's optional" approach for granted.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name