[Tlhingan-hol] Use of -'e' with relative clauses

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

tlhobpu' Philip, jatlh:
> Is this use of -'e' mandatory in such a case (where both subject and
> object are represented by nouns)?

jang ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
> The ability to leave the ambiguity unresolved is one of my favorite
> corners of Klingon grammar.

For me too. The proverb {Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh jaj}
from CK is better, I think, for the fact that either interpretation is
possible. I did it a few times in the Rime, too. One in particular I
felt would have been badly served by choosing one or the other was:

One after one, by the star-dogged moon,

which I translated as

maH DungDaq leng maS tlha'bogh Hov

because both the moon and the star are travelling, in truth. Choosing
one or the other to be the obligate head of the clause with {-'e'}
would have made the sense more limited.

QeS 'utlh