[tlhIngan Hol] Noun-noun constructions with relative clauses

[mayqel qunen'oS]

SuStel:
> Using -'e' on the head noun of a relative clause is entirely
> optional, so if it's blocked by some other rule, just don't use an -'e'.

There's something strange in all this. Let's take the original example
{DaH be' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, flush {DaH} down the toilet, and assume
we want to say "the book of the woman who is seen by the man".

It's wrong to place an {-'e'} on the first noun, so we obviously can't
write {DaH be''e' leghtaHbogh loD paq}, because that would mean "the
woman who is seen by the book of the man". And we can't place the
{-'e'} on the first noun of a {-bogh} phrase because the rules of
grammar forbid it.

On the other hand though, the rules of grammar don't forbid us to
understand "the book of the woman who is seen by the man", if we just
write the {-bogh} phrase without the {-'e'} on the {be'}.

So, to get to the point (or to "get to the roast" as we say in Greece)..

Isn't it strange that the rules of grammar forbid us to write
something, which at the same time these same rules allow us to
understand?

-- 
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ