jIH:
> yaS HoHpu' bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh
SuStel:
> That adverbial is trying to pull the disappearing action into a period of time after the sword killed the officer, but
> you're also trying to use the relative clause to describe the sword that kills the officer. There's nothing ungrammatical
> about doing this, but you're confusing yourself because you're trying to imagine the sword that disappears
> in the future being used to kill someone in the past. The ngIq is meant to refer back to the killing, but it's conjoined
> with the singing. One would be quite justified in reading it this way:

Ok, this is important. As it seems, there's something here I've been ignoring for years.. (Let's remove the {-pu'} to make this simpler).

Up until now, I was under the impression that the *only* thing that {yaS HoH bombogh yan 'ej ghIq ngabbogh} can mean is "the officer is killed by the sword which sings and then disappears." Meaning that there is a sword which sings and then disappears, and it is that particular sword which kills the officer.

But reading your comments, I understand that this sentence can have another meaning too: "the officer is killed by a sword which sings; and after the killing is done this sword disappears".

Is my understanding correct?

No. You have read this exactly the opposite of how I intended it. When I said there was nothing ungrammatical about it, that doesn't mean it says what you want it to say. It means that there's nothing wrong with the syntax. I don't think the version with ngIq has that ngIq in a sensible place.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name