jIH:
> The sentence of {tawDaq Sumbogh Ha'DIbaH vIlegh} which I wrote earlier in the thread,
> is indeed correct (exhibiting the ambiguity which has already been described). In one interpretation
> of the sentence we have a relative clause which includes the {-Daq}, i.e the relative clause of
> {tawDaq Sumbogh Ha'DIbaH}. But the important thing to notice (and I'm talking to myself right now..)
> is that there's no {-bogh}'ed noun which has been {-Daq}'ed; the {-bogh}'ed noun is the
> {Sumbogh Ha'DIbaH} and right before it, a {tawDaq} just happens to be grazing.

And this is what's happening in the {ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj} and {yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'} paq'batlh sentences.

There's no {-bogh}'ed noun which has been {-Daq}'ed; the {-bogh}'ed noun is the {vavwI'} which being {-bogh}'ed becomes {ghaHtaHbogh vavwI'}, and the {Hoch tlhIngan} which being {-bogh}'ed becomes {ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'}. In both cases, after the {-bogh}ing, there's just a {ghe'torDaq}/{yuQDaq} which just happens to be grazing in the front.

And the ambiguity exists in the first sentence as well.

The {ghe'torDaq ghaHtaHbogh vavwI' wIquvmoHjaj} may be understood either as "may we honor my father who is in hell", or "may we honor in hell my father who is being somewhere unspecified".

However, as far as the second sentence is concerned, there is no ambiguity since the {Hoch tlhIngan'e'} is not only the subject of the {ghaHtaHbogh}, but the subject of the preceding {qIm} as well:

qeylISvaD jach 'ej beyDaj luqImmo'
yuQDaq ghaHtaHbogh Hoch tlhIngan'e'

Obviously, since the given translation goes: "For every Klingon on the planet Followed her cry for Kahless" the {lu-} on the {luqImmo'} is wrong, but who cares about this right now..

--
Dana'an
https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/
Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ