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