A bit surprising, but that's what it looks like . . . I searched my email box for "wa'DIchDaq* and found a post by Michael Kounenos that uses it. And a search on the Klingonia corpus for *DIchDaq* yields 28 results, some of which are lavender (meaning they're published by the KLI).
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Daghtuj jaj 'oH jajvam'e' Message-ID: <SN7PR11MB80418F0997CED357D65CEBB5C151A@SN7PR11MB8041.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Apparently, the latter. Okrand once sent a note to SuStel: qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'. ghoHtaH je. tIv'eghtaH je. (MO to SuStel, st.klingon 11/1996) AFAIK it?s our only example of {-Daq} and the ordinal number suffix {-Dich} used together. SuStel commented: (SuStel 12/18/1996): ... in answering my letter about qep'a' wejDIch, Marc Okrand used the phrase qep'a' wejDIchDaq. Now, it could be >considered just a [proper] name, but it may also be possible that noun suffixes can go to the ordinal number.