Other un-{‘ej}-ed examples of {-bogh} and {-meH} used in the same sentence/clause:

loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He
  ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH

It waits... on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown
 regions of the universe. (S99)

ngongmeH wa' DujDaq nuHmey nISbe'bogh So'wI' jomlu'pu'

[A cloaking device which didn't disrupt weaponry was installed in

 one experimental ship. (untranslated on card)] (S33)

jolbogh ghom wa'DIch DamuvlaHmeH De' DaneHchugh, Se'vam yIjIHtaH

Stay tuned for information on how you can be among the first to beam
 aboard! (STX)

'elmeH chaw'mey je'lu'ta'bogh

will-call tickets (WSC)

SaqSub'e' muSHa'bogh pawmeH leng qeylIS HuDmey Sal ghIq ghIr

And Kahless traveled to his beloved Saq'sub, over the mountains (PB)

may' luqotlhbogh DInobmeH matay'taHvIS mavangrup'a'

Shall we rise up together and give them the fight they deserve?  
  (DSC "Battle at the Binary Stars")

--
Voragh

________________________________________________________________

From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel

On 4/26/2022 8:13 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:

muSIghbe' nepbogh 'ej tojmeH mu'meylIj
your lying and deceiving words don't deceive me
 
Would that be correct? Could we create a noun which is both {-meH}'ed and {-bogh}'ed?

You can make a noun that participates in both a relative cause and a purpose clause, but I don't believe you can 'ej them.

You can't say, for instance, nepbogh 'ej tojmeH which lies and for deceiving.

You CAN say nepbogh tojmeH mu'meylIj your words for deceiving which lie.

But why would you want to say it this way? Why not say nepbogh mu'meylIj 'ej tojbogh your words which lie and which deceive?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name