[tlhIngan Hol] {-Daq} and {-bogh} and {Sumbogh} and {Hopbogh}

[mayqel qunen'oS]

Thanks for explaining all this! I think I understand what's going on,
and I'll write an example of my own, just to be certain. But before I
do, just a clarification:

SuStel:
> Therefore, it is not possible to construct a relative clause like DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh
> ship in which I fled because the head noun is not subject or object of the main clause

Did you mean to write "because the head noun is not subject or object
of the relative clause" instead of "because the head noun is not
subject or object of the main clause"?

And now I'll write an example of my own, just to understand I got things right.

{DISvam joghmajDaq roD romuluSngapu''e' HIvpu'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey DIlegh}

Facts:
1. Relative clause: {DISvam joghmajDaq roD romuluSngapu''e' HIvpu'bogh
Ha'DIbaHmey}.
2. Head noun of the relative clause: {romuluSngapu'}.
3. If we were to include this noun in the main sentence without the
rest of the relative clause, the sentence would still work:
{romuluSngapu' DIlegh}.

But here there's just the ambiguity that depending on context, the
{DISvam joghmajDaq roD} can either refer to the {romuluSngapu''e'
HIvpu'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey} or only to the {DIlegh}. So the sentence in
question is correct, and it can mean either of two things:

1. We regularly see this year in our quadrant, Romulans who have been
attacked by animals.
2. We see Romulans, who have been regularly attacked by animals in our
quadrant during this year.

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