SuStel:

> qo'vam'e' yInvam'e' je jIH mubechmoH bIH
> as for this world and life, they make me suffer

I began to ask myself: what's happening here ? we have nouns put at the beginning of the sentence carrying the {'e'}, and as a result obtaing the translation "as for the (noun)..". And as a result of this translation, the rest of the sentence starts to revolve around this/these nouns.

So, if my understanding of this use of {'e'} is correct, I can write:

SoSlI''e' vIghro'lIj HoHta'
as for your mother, she killed your cat

vIghro''e' bo'DeghDaj Sopta'
as for the cat, it ate his bird

SoH'e', verengan Ha'DIbaH SoH.
as for you, you're a ferengi dog.

So, I would like to ask:

SuStel (or anyone else), are the above sentences correct ? is my understanding of this use of {'e'} correct ?

Yes they are! I too felt a revelation when I realized how this worked.

We have a sole example—so far as I can remember—from Star Trek V:

qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS
You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy.

The Klingon Dictionary also supports this understanding, in that when it discusses putting nouns before the main OVS structure. It says "such nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun suffix." It says "usually," not "always." What I've come to understand is that any sort of non-object, non-subject noun can go there, provided its meaning is clear. DaHjaj can go there because you immediately understand that to be a time expression. Noun-Daq can go there because the suffix tells you it's putting the sentence in a location. Well, noun-'e' can go there because it's telling you the topic of the sentence.

Using noun-'e' at the front is not just intensifying an identical subject or object, though it can have that effect. It is identifying the topic of the sentence. It might not be directly equivalent to either position.

pu'jIn pegh'e' maja'chuqnIS
as for the secret map, we need to talk
(This is not literally "we need to talk about the secret map," so don't go crazy trying to turn -'e' into an "about" suffix. We've had much argument about this in the past.)

cha'pujqut'e' ghorlu'pu'bogh waw' wISIchnIS QapHa'pa' QuQ
as for the broken dilithium crystal, we need to reach a base before the engine fails

We often want to specify "the most what?" in a superlative sentence. We would usually say something like:

puqwI' tlhIb law' Hoch yaS tlhIb puS
my child is the most competent officer

I'm starting to think we aren't doing this right. Okrand has, to my knowledge, never used a Hoch noun phrase in a comparative or superlative sentence. But he has used that sentence from ST5. The law'/puS might not be flexible enough to use anything but a pure Hoch in the B slot for a superlative. This might in fact be the right way to do it:

yaS'e' puqwI' tlhIb law' Hoch tlhIb puS
my child is the most competent officer

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name