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

[Qov]

> > 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.

How do you do that, while {ngop bIH} remains babytalk?

>{tlhIngan maH} is perfectly fine even without marking the object as 
>explicitly plural.

Yes, but so is {tlhIngan jIH}, and we know that {tlhIngan} can be 
grammatically singular or plural without explicit marking.

>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}?

Nothing.  vIlajchu'.