[tlhIngan Hol] Three questions about the *paq'batlh*

[luis.chaparro at web.de]

1.

ghe'tor 'el nuv qoj ghe'tor mej ghaH
'e' tu'be'chugh neH veqlargh
ghe'torvo' cheghlaH nuvvam

(paq'yav 11, 10-12)

Is it correct to use *-chugh neH* with the meaning *only if*? Obviously, it isn't the same as the normal meaning of *neH* with verbs (*just / merely*). And if it isn't correct, how can we render the meaning *only if*?
 
2.

ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq
'Iw bIQtIq ghoS
naDevvo' chegh pagh
 
(paq'raD Prologue, 22-24)
 
In *boQwI'* we read about *ghoS*: /This can mean either *approach* or *go away from* depending on the presence of nouns with the suffixes *-Daq* and *-vo'*. The way to use *ghoS* and other verbs of movement are described in HQ 7.4[2]. See *jaH* for details./

And in the entry *jaH*: /If the verb prefix indicates an object, then the subject is going to a destination associated with the object, which may be marked with *-Daq*. If the verb prefix indicates no object, then the destination is unspecified. In that case, a noun marked with *-Daq* indicates the location where the *going* is taking place./

The problem for me is that we have a noun phrase with *-Daq* (*ghe'tor lojmIt'a'Daq*), an object without *-Daq* (*'Iw bIQtIq*) and a verb in third person singular (with the null prefix). Is it possible that a verb of movement has a noun phrase with *-Daq* *AND* an object (with or without *-Daq*)? But then I would understand something like: He approches the river of blood and this movement happens at (the area of) the Gre'thor gates, which doesn't make much sense. I would have expected it the other way around (approching the gates, moving in the river). I just can't understand how grammar is working here. Or am I missing something?

3.

ghe’tor lojmIt
lughoS Heghpu’bogh nuvpu’ qa’pu’
chen wej tlheghmey

(paq'raD 1, 25-27)

Does *wej tlheghmey* mean *lines of three* (like the English text says), *three lines* or both (so that the phrase is ambiguous)?

Thank you for your help!