true. when it comes to noun-noun constructions which utilize {'Iv}/{nuq} confusion would/could arise.

on the other hand though, I believe that if this confusion is semantical as opposed to grammatical, then this should pose no problem.

if I say {much vIbejtaHvIS}, what does it mean ? "while I was watching a movie, the movie, movies, or the movies" ? why do we accept here this obvious semantic confusion, while at the same time reject noun-noun constructions which employ {'Iv}/{nuq} ?

why are we willing to accept context, in order to clarify whether the {vI-} means I-he/she/it as opposed to I-them, while at the same time chopping off our own nuts by saying "in a noun-noun construction with question words, confusion could take place".

this is contradictory to say the least.

so, of course, this all comes down to "because maltz said so".. maj. I don't disagree. but I just can't buy that the problem here would be the "many possible alternate translations".

finally, I could never understand the argument "okrand never used whatever".

okrand created the language, and while doing so he wrote specific do's and don't's. for instance he said, you can't have in a SAO after the {'e'} a type-7 suffix. maj.

but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every possible combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall into these combinations, then it is wrong ?

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'