On 10/6/2017 2:13 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
*From:*mayqel qunenoS *< vaj, naDev chaHtaHvIS no'ma', chutmey'e' chenmoHta'bogh qeylIS lajchu'*
*< *so, while our ancestors were here, they followed the rules created by Kahless
*no’*is grammatically singular. So odd as it sounds, this should be *naDev ghaHtaHvIS no’ma’* – although I suspect it’s a common enough mistake, which is likely why Okrand always warns against it:
This is correct, although we've never gotten a canon example of specifying an inherently plural noun with a pronoun. I have a theory that *no' ghaH* is not actually the correct form. I believe we've seen evidence that a group like a *qorDu'* is not considered a being capable of using language, even though it is made up of individuals who are. Perhaps inherently plural nouns like *no'* work the same way. In that case, it's *qempa' ghaH*/he/she is an ancestor/ and *no' 'oH*/they are ancestors./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name