> I also think that {nol} "funeral" is not
> appropriate. Felix probably meant
> {mol} "grave".

I don't think «mol» is really the right word either, unless they're actually buried in the ground (or in a wall or the like).

In paq'batlh, the phrase

«chalqachlIj rachlu'ta'bogh tutDaq mol'egh betleH»

is used to mean something like "the bat'leth buried itself in the fortified tower's column".
While this may be modtic usage, it suggests to me that the verb «mol» involves an actual, physical burial, and since it is likely cognate with the noun «mol», I would expect the same of it.

//loghaD
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:43:38 PM
To: Klingon language email discussion forum
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Maltz about castles
 

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
A grand mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal might perhaps be called «nol DuHmor». Not sure about its defenses, though; perhaps it's more of a «nol qach'a'».
 
​Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside.

I also think that {nol} "funeral" is not appropriate. Felix probably meant {mol} "grave".

-- ghunchu'wI'