[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh javmaH jav: bIjqoq

[ghunchu'wI']

On Apr 19, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:

> Hota'ro' bIjqoq cha'bogh meH ta lubejpu' 'e' luchIDqangbe'law'.

jIrap.

> negh ghaH.
> 
> [219] This pronoun feels utterly wrong, like it should be negh chaH--and it took me several readings to catch it, but it's in line with {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} from KGT. It irks me when I have a grammatically singular subject for plural beings and I can't use lu- for a singular object.

I think {negh chaH} can be justified.

{tlhIngan maH} is perfectly fine even without marking the object as explicitly plural. That might not be enough by itself, as we know unmarked nouns *can* be plural and we know {negh} is not, so I'm going to invite debate on a related situation:

Is anything wrong with {qorDu' maH}? 

-- ghunchu'wI'