[tlhIngan Hol] combining {-meH} and {-bogh} on {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed nouns

[D qunen'oS]

Thank you voragh and SuStel for taking the time to reply. But there's something I still don't understand.

SuStel:
> You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause 
> and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them.
> You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving.

But saying {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} isn't somehow equivalent to the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} "romulan hunter-killer probe"? If the {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh mu'mey} is correct, then why would the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey} be any different? We just substitute one type-9 with another.

SuStel:
> You CAN say nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj your words for deceiving which lie.

I hadn't thought of this possibility.

SuStel:
> But why would you want to say it this way? 
> Why not say nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh 
> your words which lie and which deceive?

I don't remember the exact context of the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}; all I remember is that I was thinking something in Klingon, and my mind made the instinctive choice of combining {-bogh} and {-meH} this way.

Of course you're right, and I agree with you. I could just say {nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh}. But I can't stop wondering about the {nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'mey}. I can't understand how/why it's any different from the allowed {nepbogh 'ej tojbogh}.

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