De'vID is pointing out that wej also is an adverbial meaning "not yet". Since relative clauses can take adverbials, wej qay'bogh ghu' could also be translated as "a situation which isn't yet a problem". It's more about the specific number you picked rather than the construction in general.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me like there's more potential for confusion when splitting the words apart like that. An object of a relative clause could be interpreted as the first N of a N-N construction, or vice versa, or some other confusing thing. Keeping a N-N or number-N construction together feels clearer, more orderly, etc. to me. (Nobody is likely to interpret qay'bogh wej ghu' as "a situation that's not yet a problem".) It's an aesthetic thing -- it's not wrong, per se, but it's probably not how I would write it, unless I was intentionally going for a pun or wordplay.

(I wonder, though: would using commas to set off the relative clause make sense to most Klingonists? If so, how would you use them? E.g., if I had a sentence which went like ...mu' mu' wej, qay'bogh ghu', mu' mu'..., would that be interpreted as what mayqel is going for? The comma between wej and qay'bogh is intended to emphasize that wej isn't part of the relative clause, but would it also make it less clear that wej and ghu' are forming a N-N construction? Does the comma after ghu' make this more or less clear? I know there's no explicit canon guidance on the proper use of commas, this is just a style question.)