charghwI':
This may be grammatically perfect, though I find {wa’ Qunpu’vam pong cha’DIch} unnecessarily confusing in terms of plurality.
Yes, I agree. It can be confusing. The intended meaning was "one epithet of these gods": Qunpu'vam = these gods pong cha'DIch = epithet Qunpu'vam pong cha'DIch = epithet of these gods wa' Qunpu'vam pong cha'DIch = one epithet of these gods However, you're right in your comment that it can be confusing. Perhaps it would be less confusing if I wrote: {Qunpu’vam wa' pong cha’DIch} one epithet of these gods But I've the habit of placing numbers before the entire noun-noun construction, {-meH}'ed/{-bogh}'ed noun, etc.. charghwI':
I would have said: {pong cha’DIch lughaj Qunpu’vam. ‘aqrayuS ponglu’.}
This is good too. charghwI':
English leans on “to be” so often, I tend to be conscious about minimizing its use in Klingon when something else would serve as well. {‘aqrayuS ponglu’} just feels slightly more direct and forceful than {‘aqrayuS ‘oH pongchaj’e’}. This is merely a stylistic suggestion.
Yes, I agree. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read the original post, and sharing your thoughts. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ