<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/8/2021 8:07 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJZ5BP8Uos1VQeuNC_-7ZYQ3LUjPf_bDX9So+b2jw3sfg@mail.gmail.com">I
know that the usual way of using two -bogh clauses on a noun is by
joining them with 'ej:
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">HoHbogh 'ej Qaw'bogh nuH</div>
<div dir="auto">weapon which kills and destroys</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But is there any rule which is actually being
broken if we wrote the above without the 'ej?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">HoHbogh Qaw'bogh nuH</div>
<div dir="auto">weapon which kills which destroys</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Why would writing something like this be wrong?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Since a relative clause is treated grammatically like a noun,
doing this breaks no rules. But it's never appeared in canon, and
it doesn't appear to be something that Klingons do.</p>
<p>Look at your English translation: <i>weapon which kills which
destroys.</i> There's no rule in English that disallows that
phrase, but it wouldn't be said in English. You'd say <i>weapon
which kills and destroys.</i> Your phrase breaks no rule, but
it's also not right.<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>