Unless I've missed something, the only situation where we know that a verb is considered to have no subject and to not be in any person is when it's used with {-ghach}. Given the framework of the language as we currently know it, it makes more sense to me to interpret {ghojmeH taj} as having an impersonal third-person verb, rather than a subjectless quasi-infinitive.

I don't see we have any evidence to support the notion that ghojmeH taj means in-order-that-someone-unspecified-learns knife. We do, on the other hand, have phrases like ja'chuqmeH rojHom truce (in order) to confer, in the sentence ja'chuqmeH rojHom neH jaghla' The enemy commander wishes a truce (in order) to confer, which we know is what Kruge is told about Kirk — it would have to be a maja'chuqmeH rojHom in that circumstance. Yes, you could argue that this line is not said in Klingon in the movie, but this is obviously meant to be the very line from the movie. You'd also have to explain why we don't say ghojlu'meH taj.

We know that Klingon has impersonal third-person verbs that are still conceived of as having unspecified subjects: {SIS}, {taH pagh taHbe'.}

I don't think it's all that clear that taH pagh taHbe' is an example of an unspecified subject. I don't think of this line as Either an unspecified someone goes on or an unspecified someone doesn't go on; I think of it as Either (unconjugated) go on or (unconjugated) not go on.

As for SIS and other weather-related words, this isn't just a case of having an unspecified subject; it's a case of not explicitly mentioning the subject because it's understood. It's idiomatic not to say the subject. What IS the subject? Typically muD or chal. SIS doesn't just mean something unspecified rains; it means something-we-all-know-about-so-it's-customary-not-to-mention-it rains. It's not customary not to mention the subject of ja'chuqmeH rojHom; it literally has no subject.

We know that in other instances where English or other languages usually use infinitives that Klingon still requires a subject, explicit or otherwise, like in sentences with {'e'} or {neH}. E.g. "I want to drink" is translated with an explicit subject for "drink": {jItlhutlh vIneH.}

I'm not arguing based on English infinitives, but based on canonical usage and the meaning of the word infinitive.

It's possible that some {-meH} verbs modifying nouns are another exception to the "verbs have subjects and persons" pattern like {-ghach}, but Maltz hasn't said so one way or the other. Until he does, I don't see a reason to make an exception to this pattern just for some uses of {-meH}, when the existing pattern can handle those uses just fine as impersonal third-person verbs.

I don't see any reason to believe that there's a rule that says all verbs must have subjects and persons unless exempted. The fact that Klingon lacks an infinitive form for verbs just means that when infinitives occur, they're not marked.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name