I am not sure how to explain that in English or Klingon grammar terms,
but I have a feeling that there are two kinds of noun noun construction,
even thoug they are both declared a genitive: One is like a way to
decribe the sort of a thing, the other is a possessive contstruction.
The genitive construction can be used to denote (among other things) attributive or possessive relationships.
I think this may be confusing to German speakers because German uses the attributive genitive to indicate possession, and uses compounding (Komposita) to indicate attribution when a noun functions as an adjective. Thus, one wouldn't normally say "die Glocke des Eisens" but "die Eisenglocke". But in Klingon, N1-N2 is "N1's N2" or "N2 of N1" and can indicate both attribution and possession.
See, {baS 'In} is a bell made of metal. When I talk about {HoD 'In} it's
the bell of the captain. A less ambiguous example might be this:
{HoD qab vIlegh}
"I see the captain's face"
Here, the face belongs to the captain. That's why the English
translation uses the ['s].
Theoretically, one could argue you can omit that. Then, the meaning
would change to "a captain face" - parallel to a "pokerface". In that
case, one does not use the ['s] when translating to Klingon.
I do not intend to superimpose something into Klingon grammar what isn't
intended to be there. Maybe Klingon grammarians do not see the
difference. But I believe that semantically, there is a difference.
compare
I want to buy the captain's boots. [those he's wearing]
vs.
I want to buy some captain boots. [a type of boots]
In some cases like above it's ambiguous in Klingon (HoD DaS), but
sometimes it's clear that a {baS 'In} is definitely not an {'In} that is
owned by the {baS}. Instead, it's an {'In} /made of/ {baS}.
I hope anyone understands my point. I am not a linguist.
This type of ambiguity exists in English also. For example, the {Daqtagh} is a "warrior's knife". In context, we know it means "a knife meant to be used or carried by a warrior" (attribution with "warrior" functioning as an adjective, perhaps "das Kriegermesser" in German; indeed, I see that is the actual German translation you provided for {boQwI'}). But "a warrior's knife" could also mean "a knife belonging to a particular warrior" (possession, "das Messer des Kriegers").
As in English, context usually disambiguates. If I'm talking about a specific captain and I refer to "the captain's boots" ("die Stiefel des Kapitäns"), you know I'm talking about boots belonging to a specific person. If I'm in a boot distribution centre for the Klingon Defense Force and they give out different kinds of boots to different ranks, and I ask for "the captain['s] boots" (perhaps "Kapitänsstiefel"), you know I'm talking about a type of boot. Here, Klingon and English are similarly ambiguous, whereas German distinguishes the two cases, and I think that's what you're getting at.
--
De'vID