Technically {​maH} would include the concept of {-pu'}!

I do see where you're coming from here. If {vIghro'mey} refers to a group of cats, and {Hoch vIghro'mey} means "all cats, all the cats", then if {maH} refers to a group of people, then why wouldn't {Hoch maH} be used to mean "all of us, all the people in the group of us"? (Or at least, why aren't the other Klingonists like myself using it that way, since Maltz hasn't weighed in one way or another.)

I think the distinction here is between a plural noun and a noun that collectively refers to a group. For instance, {Hoch ghom} would mean "each group", not "all of the members of the group", and {Hoch ghommey} would mean "all groups". So we're left with the question: is {maH} similar to {vIghro'mey} or to {ghom}? It's grammatically plural, like {vIghro'mey}, but refers to its constituents as a whole and not as individuals, like {ghom}. Some of the posters here, like myself, are treating it more like {ghom}. At least for me, I'm doing this because it feels like the "treats the group as a whole" element is more important than the "grammatically plural" element.

So if {maH} does work like {ghom}, then {Hoch maH} would refer to "each 'group of us'", and it's somewhat difficult to understand quite what that would mean. (I'm thinking of the TNG episode where they encountered hundreds of Enterprises from parallel universes. Someone on the bridge crew might refer to the totality of the various parallel bridge crews as {Hoch maH}. Many weird constructions involving pronouns would only really make sense in cases of multiple or confused identities. They'd probably be ungrammatical, but the weirdness of the construction would reflect the weirdness of the situation. {'ach DoS vIchIlqa'.}) We know that {Hoch} following a noun means something like "all of the given noun, the entirety of the noun", and following a group noun, it would seem to mean "all the members of that group" rather than "all the groups". So that's why I initially suggested {maH Hoch}.