[Tlhingan-hol] how does {-Ha'} work on verbs that affect multiple objects?

[De'vID]

A fellow Klingonist (jaSwa') and I are having a discussion about
{-Ha'} off-list.  He raised some interesting questions about {-Ha'},
which (with his permission) I thought I'd share.

The discussion started with {nobHa'}, defined as "give back, return"
in KGT.  TKW p.189 has:
{Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'} "Don't trust Ferengi who
give back money"

One can imagine the following sequence of events:
{verenganvaD Huch nob tlhIngan} "The Klingon gave money to the Ferengi"
{Huch neHbe' verengan} "The Ferengi didn't want the money"
{Huch nobHa' verengan} "The Ferengi gave the money back"

In the above, {nobHa'} is performed by the Ferengi.  However, could we
also describe a situation like this?
{verenganvaD Huch nob tlhIngan} "The Klingon gave money to the Ferengi"
{Huch tlhapqa' neH tlhIngan} "The Klingon wanted the money back"
{Huch ?nobHa' tlhIngan} "The Klingon ungave the money, the Klingon
took his money back"

Is this second scenario a legitimate use of {nobHa'}?  Why or why not?
 If you didn't have the canon definition and example, would your
opinion have been different?  Could {nobHa'} mean both "give back" and
?"ungive, take back", depending on the context (i.e., whether the
subject of {nobHa'} was the original giver or recipient of {nob})?

With verbs affecting the subject (e.g., adjectival verbs), it's clear
that the subject must perform the {-Ha'} action, e.g., if my targ
{lIt} the control panel, only it can {lItHa'} it.  With verbs
affecting only one object, in most cases I think it's clear that
anyone can perform the {-Ha'} action, e.g., if I {jotlh} a poster from
a wall, someone else can come along and {jotlhHa'} it, although I can
also {jotlhHa'} it myself.

{nobHa'} is obviously not like {lItHa'}, but is it like {jotlh}?  It
seems similar, and yet it is different in that it has an indirect
object marked with {-vaD}.

The question is, if I {nob} something, is the set of people who can {nobHa'} it:
1) only the recipient? (that the recipient can {nobHa'} the given item
is the only usage supported by canon)
2) the recipient or myself? (why shouldn't I be able to {-Ha'} an
action I performed?)
3) the recipient, myself, or anyone else? (if a third party retrieved
the given item from the recipient and returned it to me, can {nobHa'}
describe this person's action?)

I tried to come up with examples of other verbs, and I think I can
divide them into three classes based on what they affect.

With verbs like {lIt}, {'el}, {jaH}, {yong}, which affect the subject
(whether or not the verb can take an object), the subject is the only
one who can {-Ha'}.  (But someone else can {-Ha'moH}.  The {-moH}
effectively turns this case into the next one.)

With verbs like {jotlh}, {pol}, {QeymoH}, which affect only the one
object, anyone can {-Ha'} the action.

But with verbs like {nob}, {ngev}, {ngeH}, which affect two objects,
it's not clear if anyone other than the object marked with {-vaD} (the
indirect object, recipient, or beneficiary) can {-Ha'} the original
action.

What do y'all think?

-- 
De'vID