It’s interesting that the subject of {nob} is the indirect object of {nobHa’}.
It is?
From The Klingon Way p.189:
{Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'.} [sic - {yI-} should be {tI-}]
The subject of {nob} is the giver. The subject of {nobHa'} is also the giver (or giving-back-er). The indirect object in both cases (if you mean a noun with {-vaD}) is the recipient.
I’m surprised that {nobHa’} isn’t to take something back, rather than to give something back.
I guess I can see the logic in that, but {nobHa'} is very easily explained as "undo giving", and it's open whether the subject of {nobHa'} is the original giver or the original recipient. Perhaps it can work either way, depending on context?
However, {tlhapqa'} is obviously "retrieve" (take something back).
But it’s arbitrary, and this is the official way Klingon’s mean it.