The trouble with {maqIHbogh jaj} is that the relative clause has no head.

--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

From: Alan Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:28 PM
To: Klingon language email discussion forum
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] This day

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

{maqIHbogh jaj} sounds wrong.

I think it sounds as wrong as {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} and {DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'}. The first phrase is in TKD; the second is in the paq'batlh. If I encountered {maqIHbogh jaj} without warning, I'd definitely notice it as unusual, but I don't think I would have a problem understanding it.

The only "canon precedent" I know of is the one already noted from TKW.

-- ghunchu'wI'