On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 4:14 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats".

In particular, I had asked if we could write {vIghro' DImuSHa' Hoch}. And as we had said back then, we can't say something like this because it would violate the accord rule.

maj.

However, I just had an idea, which I would like to discuss.

Why not write: 

{vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ?

all of us love cats

Does it violate any rule ? I think it is correct and grammatical. Let alone that we could place an {-'e'} on the {Hoch} for added emphasis, thus writing {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch'e'}.

The fierceness with which people desire a y'all in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. There is no fundamental need to express this with a built-in phrase.

I think there's a few instances of "all of us" in paq'batlh that were just translated as {maH} or some first-person-plural prefix, so you could probably get away with just {maH}.

Indeed, you should use just maH. If there's any ambiguity about who loves cats, you can list who you're talking about.

But if it's important to convey the specific notion of "all of us", then {maH Hoch} "the entirety of us" is probably an acceptable way to express that basic idea. If {maH Hoch} works, then {Hochmaj} might be even better.

Assuming this were something we wanted to say, I would expect it to be maH Hoch, not Hochmaj. Consider what we discover in KGT with area phrases (like jIH 'em area behind me, not *'emwIj).

​ That said, as you've got it written, it still violates the rule of accord. The subject is {Hoch}, not {maH}​, so you'd still use a third-person-subject prefix. {vIghro'mey muSHa' maH Hoch/Hochmaj}.

Yes. The head noun of the noun-noun is Hoch, so the phrase is third-person. Kinda works against using this as a substitute for we all.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name