[Tlhingan-hol] "up to" or "as many as"

[Felix Malmenbeck]

> Sure, but this is not one of those cases.

Aye, and so long as it's merely a stylistic preference, that's satisfactory. I don't really get your reasoning with basing it on which idea is most fundamental, however.

> jav [DuHbe'bogh Doch]
> DuHbe'bogh [jav Doch]
> 
> Doing it the latter way also risks confusing it with {[DuHbe'bogh jav]
> Doch} "a thing of impossible sixes." It's unlikely that the former would
> be mistaken for the nonsensical "a thing of an impossibled six," since
> one does not expect {DuH} to take an object.

Fair enough, but I personally feel that introducing an unnecessary [relative phrase] + [noun] compound is more of a con than that potential ambiguity.
Still, I suppose what I can take away from this discussion is that if ever I run into a similar case where that ambiguity would be more of a hassle, I can try moving the number. DaHjaj vay' vIghojpu'.