jIH:
yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh SuStel: That adverbial is trying to pull the disappearing action into a period of time after the sword killed the officer, but you're also trying to use the relative clause to describe the sword that kills the officer. There's nothing ungrammatical about doing this, but you're confusing yourself because you're trying to imagine the sword that disappears in the future being used to kill someone in the past. The ngIq is meant to refer back to the killing, but it's conjoined with the singing. One would be quite justified in reading it this way:
Ok, this is important. As it seems, there's something here I've been ignoring for years.. (Let's remove the {-pu'} to make this simpler). Up until now, I was under the impression that the *only* thing that {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} can mean is "the officer is killed by the sword which sings and then disappears." Meaning that there is a sword which sings and then disappears, and it is that particular sword which kills the officer. But reading your comments, I understand that this sentence can have another meaning too: "the officer is killed by a sword which sings; and after the killing is done this sword disappears". Is my understanding correct? Can the {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} have both these meanings? (Of course it isn't something I'd actually use, but -as always- I'm trying to understand how things work). -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ