The "you" in that sentence refers to Marc Okrand, who the questions are intended for, since this thread was started about things that mayqel hoped to ask him at the next qepHom. I already know your thoughts on -vaD and indirect objects.

Pretty much. But I am curious to know about stative verbs with -vaD specifically, and I didn't want to assume that he would think of mentioning those in his answer for question 2. (When I asked "Are there certain verbs that can never take it?", I was thinking more about exceptions for specific verbs rather than classes of them, along the lines of how ghuS never takes -rup or how neH doesn't use 'e'.)

I'm with you, honestly. I don't think it's likely to be grammatical. But one thing I really enjoy about the Klingon language is when Okrand fleshes out its cultural background with details you might not care about if you're just translating everyday things. Slang, dialectical variations, social class variations, words borrowed from other languages, which errors are common among different types of novices, which errors are informally tolerable and which aren't, words for obscure or specific Klingon cultural concepts that are mostly useless in everyday use (wob is my favorite of these). That sort of thing. I'm curious to know the cultural status of the 3rd-person-indirect-object prefix trick. Is it technically wrong but casually acceptable, like "ain't" or "there's two people here"? Is it out-and-out wrong, like "he eateds lunch" or "me talk like caveman"? Is it a dialect thing, acceptable only in some regions or social classes, and if so, what do most Klingons think of those regions or social classes? Is it something that was acceptable in Discovery times but fell out of acceptable use by the time Maltz moved into Okrand's basement? And so on. There's a lot of ways for a construction to be wrong.