ghItlh mayqel qunenoS:

>> DaH qep'a' ve'meH bonablaH.

>If the {ve'} as a verb of movement follows the same rules with {jaH}, and the sentence refers to a single person, then..

>shouldn't this be {DaH qep'a'Daq Dave'meH bInablaH} or {DaH qep'a' Da'vemeH bInablaH} ?

Since the {bo-} prefix is used on the main verb, the sentence is not referring to a single person.  To be safe, this should be, {DaH qep'a'Daq bove'meH bonablaH}.  The {-Daq} is actually optional and should not be a point of contention or argument.

It's not that it's optional; it's that it's redundant. Let me use an example that makes it clear what is an object and what isn't (assuming ve' works like jaH).

jIH muve'
he travels to me
I am his destination. jIH is the object of ve'.

jIHDaq ve'
he travels on me
He's riding on my back, or something like that. The destination is unstated. You can tell that jIHDaq is not the object of ve' because the verb prefix agrees with he/she/it/they/none.

jIHDaq muve'
he travels to at-me; he travels to me-as-location
This is grammatical; you're just marking me explicitly as a location. The verb prefix agrees with jIHDaq and shows that that's its object. But since ve' includes the notion that its object is a location, this is redundant. I have tried to reproduce its effect in the English translation above. The Klingon is more formally grammatically correct than the English.

Unfortunately, the line from the movie is simply jIve'. We don't actually know whether it is a "verb of motion" or not. Since it is compared to leng, which is a verb of motion, my money is on ve' being one too.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name