The description in TKD of {-moH} is relatively simple, presenting what appeared at the time to be a shift in the interpretation of the verb prefix such that the subject was the one causing the action to happen and the object was the person or thing doing the action.
Those were simpler times.
But that's just it. TKD doesn't say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about -moH causing a shifting prefix or subjects becoming objects. NOTHING. That was a rule YOU MADE UP to explain some of the examples you saw in TKD, like tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH. You made up the wrong rule and believed it to be a rule Okrand made up.
(And I don't mean "you" as in you, personally.)
When we got ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH, we found an exception to that so-called rule. We later found other exceptions that worked identically, proving that the first one wasn't an error or a special case. What we needed was to recognize that the rule you made up was inadequate. You (now you, personally) have always been unable to make that leap. You've never been able to truly accept that the made up rule you internalized was wrong.
What I have done is also make up a rule to explain examples. But
the rule I have made up is consistent with everything we know. And
if something comes along that disproves that rule, I'll change it.
The issue is that while the subject of the verb identified by the prefix on a verb with {-moH} is always the “agent” who causes the action to occur, the object specified by the prefix in a verb with {-moH} apparently can either be the subject performing the action, or it can be the direct object of the action of the verb. Apparently, context alone can disambiguate when nothing else provides that.
No. The subject of a verb with -moH, even if that subject
is elided, is the cause, not the agent. In semantics, an agent is
an entity that deliberately performs the action of the verb. In
the sentence la'vaD Hol ghojmoH Sogh, the Sogh is
the cause, and the la' is the agent, because the la'
is the one that deliberately performs Sogh.
Meanwhile, the object of the verb is the patient (undergoes the action and changes its state) or theme (undergoes the action and does not change its state). In the above sentence, the Hol is the theme.
The terminology in TKD is obviously inadequate to address this, because it doesn't even try to address it. It presents examples of -moH without explaining AT ALL how it works. You came up with your own explanation and believed it to be gospel. In the terminology of TKD, we have the SYNTACTIC roles of subject (the unmarked noun after the verb), object (the unmarked noun before the verb), and beneficiary (the noun marked with -vaD before any object) and the SEMANTIC roles of direct object (the patient or theme), indirect object (the recipient), and cause (and we don't get a semantic term for the subject of a verb without -moH).
And the rule that DOES seem to accommodate every example we have
is this: when using -moH, the subject has the semantic
role of cause, the object has the semantic role of either direct
object or indirect object if there is no direct object, and the
beneficiary has the role of indirect object if the object already
has the semantic role of direct object.
This explains how tIjwI'ghom vIchenmoH (TKD) works. This
explains how ghaHvaD quHDaj qawmoH (S20) works. This
explains how [puqloDwI'] vIghojHa'moH (PB) works.
It explains everything. As long as it continues to explain
everything, it is the best model for -moH we have.
But, Okrand’s version of this is:
SoHvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH.
If you compress {ghojmoH} into its dictionary definition, this makes sense as “For you, I will teach the Klingon language.” Note that in English, you can teach a topic, and you can teach a student, and you can teach a topic to a student, as well as teach a student about a topic. These helper words disambiguate the topic and the student.
It's not for you. That's a general benefactive
interpretation. -vaD nouns play two separate semantic
roles. They can be a general benefactive, as in Qu'vaD lI'
It is useful for the mission, or they can be indirect
objects, as in yaSvaD taj nobpu' qama' The prisoner gave
the officer the knife. In the former, you would not
interpret Qu'vaD as received by the mission, and
in the latter you would not interpret yaSvaD as for
the benefit of the officer.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name