The original thing I was asking about was part of a relative clause so I wanted to simplify the example but I guess I made it too simple and omitted an actual indirect object which was the point of the prefix trick. The clause was “Sep vIDellu'bogh” which I used in the sentence:

pa' Sep'e' jInajtaHvIS vIDellu'bogh tu'lu'

Over there there is a region that was described to me while I was dreaming

(There are probably other problems with this sentence; I wasn’t sure where to place the jInajtaHvIS, for example, which is also why I wanted to simplify the example.)

Yes, the jInajtaHvIS makes it way too complicated... probably even without considering the prefix trick. It might make grammatical sense with the jInajtaHvIS between the pa' and Sep'e' or after the vIDellu'bogh, but at this point I'd be worried about the listener's ability to parse the nested clauses.

If we drop the dreaming bit for now, and show the sentence without the prefix trick, we have

pa' jIHvaD Sep Dellu'pu'bogh tu'lu'
The region which was described to me is thereabouts.
(Notice that the -pu' is required; the describing is already done.)

I don't see why the prefix trick wouldn't work here, again with the caveat that we've never seen the prefix trick on a verb with an indefinite subject:

pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh tu'lu'
The region which was described to me is thereabouts.

If I had to put the dreaming back in, and if I had to keep it all in one sentence, I'd probably do it like this:

pa' Sep vIDellu'pu'bogh jInajtaHvIS tu'lu'
The region which was described to me while I was dreaming is thereabouts.

I went with “muDelbogh vay'” since it didn’t affect syllable count or the rhyme at the end of the line (rhyming with “jenqu'” in the previous line) and the meter actually worked out better too that way.

I'm not going to mess with meter or rhyme.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name