[tlhIngan Hol] "Seasons of Love" in Klingon / And two grammatical questions

[luis.chaparro at web.de]

Thank you, SuStel and charghwI' for taking the time to answer!

charghwI':

> I’m guessing that one is seeking an unambiguous expression that controls whether one is to understand that the woman owns the money and the book, or whether the woman owns the money and not the book.

> It would be easy to do if not saddled with the additional requirement that this level of unambiguous expression all happen in one phrase.

You're right, that's the problem I'm focusing on. But I'm not trying to avoid ambiguity :-) I just wanted to know if the Klingon expression is ambiguous and how I should understand this ambiguity.

SuStel:

> I can't follow what you're asking. Just put the type 5 noun suffixes on the appropriate place of each conjoined item, whether the item is a single noun, a noun-noun construction, a relative clause, a verbally modified noun, or something else.

Sorry, I was probably trying to address to many different things at once. Leaving aside *quwargh tach Qe' je* and DloraH's example, what I was trying to ask is:

1. Is this phrase grammatically correct?: *be' Huchmo' paqmo' je*.
2. Without any further context, has that phrase two different meanings?:
   a. *Because of the woman's money and book* (the woman owns the money and the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something).
   b. *Because of the woman's money and the book* (the woman only owns the money, not the book, and both the money and the book are the cause of something - to avoid ambiguity we could use here punctuation: *be' Huchmo', paqmo' je*).