ben law', loD tu'lu'.

be'nal ghaj loD.

yatlhlaHbe' be'nal.

QorghwaghDaq ghaHtaHvIS be'nal;

Du'Hom leghlaH.

Qorwagh

It would be fine to say QorwaghDajvo' Du'Hom leghlaH be'nal.

But if you do use ghaHtaHvIS, remember to put the -'e' on the subject: QorwaghDaq ghaHtaHvIS be'nal'e'.

Du'Hom 'IH.

'IH Du'Hom.

yav vel tI.

naH pov law' Hoch pov puS.

I'm not quite sure how to understand this. Vegetables are the most excellent. Do you mean the vegetables in THIS garden are more excellent than those of any other garden? There are a few ways to say that:

Hoch Du'Hommey naH'e' Du'Homvam naH pov law' Hoch pov puS
of all gardens' vegetables, this garden's vegetables are the most excellent

which could probably be shortened to

Hoch Du'Hommey'e' naHvam pov law' Hoch pov puS
of all gardens, these vegetables are the most excellent

Or you could say:

Du'Homvam naH pov law' Hoch latlh Du'Hommey naH pov puS
this garden's vegetables are more excellent than every other garden's vegetables

Du'Hom Dech chevwI' tlhoy'.

Du'Hom ghaj 'IDnar pIn'a'.

While this is probably perfectly acceptable, I sometimes have trouble accepting ghaj as an expression of ownership instead of possession. You could say instead, 'IDnar pIn'a' Du'Hom 'oH it is a wizard's garden.

Hoch ghIj 'IDnar pIn'a'.

Du'Hom leghtaHvIS be'nal;

DIghna' por tu'.

DeH.

baQ.

SuD.

neH.

If it is important to maintain the single-syllable sound of this progression, then that's fine. But I had to take a moment to realize the last word was no longer using the DIghna' leaf as its subject. If the monosyllable is not important, then expand it to at least neH ghaH if not the unabridged DIghna' por neH ghaH.

wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH cha' rammey je, por neH.

chabalHom chabal chabal'a' neHtaH.

majQa'!

qurchoH.

DIghna' por ghajlaHbe'. net Sov

pujchoH.

chISchoH.

'ItchoH.

bIt loD.

ghel:

<nuqneH, be'nalwI'?>

nuqneH is used as a greeting; I don't think it's meant for this sort of thing. nuq DaneH would be appropriate.

jang:

<DIghna' porvam vISoplaHchughbe', vaj jIHegh.>

You can't put rovers after type 9 verb suffixes. But you don't need to: vISoplaHbe'chugh if I cannot eat it.

be'nalDaj SaH loD.

Qub loD:

<Hegh be'nalwI' vIneHbe'.

DIghna' por vISuqqang.>

choS, tlhoy' toS.

nom DIghna' por Suq.

be'nalDaj nob.

por mIQ be'nal.

Sop.

'ey!

'ach tlhoy DIghna' por tIv.

wa'leS, DIghna' por neHtaH.

vaj choS, tlhoy' toSqa'.

DIghna' por Suq.

ngugh 'IDnar pIn'a' legh.

ghIj.

You've switched subjects again without it being clear what you're doing. Without the cultural hint that wizards catching men stealing stuff from their gardens are more likely to scare the men than the men are to scare the wizards, it would be hard to distinguish who's doing the scaring here. It would be the same in English if I said, "He climbed the wall. He got the leaf. Then he saw the wizard. He scared him." Who's doing the scaring?

Fortunately, it's all right in Klingon if you want to be redundant, more so than in English. Just say loD ghIj 'IDnar.

By the way, for those verbs that are completed in the telling, use -pu' or -ta' to indicate this. So you probably want to use DIghna' por Suqpu' or DIghna' por Suqta', but probably just loD ghIj 'IDnar, unless you mean the man was startled but then no longer scared.

There are a number of sentences here that you haven't added perfective to that you probably should have, and I haven't pointed them out.

jatlh 'IDnar pIn'a':

<nIHwI'!

DIghna' por DanIH.

qabIj.>

jang loD:

<pung!

be'nalwI'vaD 'oH.

This is not wrong, but I'd be tempted to use a real verb: e.g., be'nalwI'vaD jIvangpu'.

DIghna' por SopnIS.

neHqu'.

por Supbe'chugh, Hegh.>

Sop

jang 'IDnar pIn'a':

<bIvItchugh;

DIghna' por Daghaj.

'ach ghubDaQlI' DanobnIS.

You could be more specific: ghubDaQlI' chonobnIS or jIHvaD ghubDaQlI' DanobnIS.

puq vIQorgh.

SoS jIDa.>

vIDa

lay' loD.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name