Interesting.. I hadn't thought of that possibility..

However, although I wouldn't do it while writing somewhere, where I wouldn't be providing the english translation too, here is how I would understand it..

The {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, I would understand it as {tIQbogh (qotlhbogh vIghro')}, i.e. "cat which tickles which is ancient".

The {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, I would understand it as {qeqmeH (langmeH mIw)}, i.e. "thinning process in order to train".

I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, could be read too as, {(tIQbogh qotlhbogh) vIghro'}, although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them.

While nothing in the given rules prohibits {Xbogh {Ybogh Z}} or {XmeH {YmeH Z}}, we've never seen anything like them.

I don't see any way these could be interpreted as {{Xbogh Ybogh} Z} or {{XmeH YmeH} Z}.

I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'} could also mean {tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'}; although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them.

The only semantic difference I see is in scoping: in tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro' the tickling is more closely associated with the cat than the being ancient. In tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro' the tickling and the being ancient are equally applicable to the cat.

And qeylIS knows I wonder, whether the {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, could also mean {qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw}, which *is* indeed quite different..

In both cases just stick with the one with the conjunction.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name