<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/6/2019 10:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mbu12ecej2jbqc60t1htb4cq.1573052704884@email.android.com">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">Suppose I
write:</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">{raS retlhDaq
Qot voDleH; pa' Qotbogh je nuvpu'vaD jatlh..}</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">for:</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">"the emperor
was reclining next to the table; he said for the people who were
reclining there too.."</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">Would the
klingon sentence be grammatically correct ? I'm troubled by the
{je} following a {-bogh} clause, and I don't know whether the
{pa'} can refer *only* to the {Qotbogh}.</p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">I know I could
express the desired meaning in other ways too, but I can't stop
wondering whether the klingon sentence is actually correct.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As others have said, it's not grammatically wrong, but it is
difficult to follow, with a locative attached to a relative clause
attached to a beneficiary attached to a verb.</p>
<p>You can simplify it: <b>raS retlhDaq Qot voDleH latlh je;
latlhvaD jatlh voDleH...</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>