[Tlhingan-hol] headless {-bogh}?

[Bellerophon, modeler]

Does {Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'} truly contain a "headless relative?" The object
of Dajatlh isn't stated, but the prefix makes clear that it does have an
object. It's also obvious what the object has to be: the words of the
listener. Klingon frequently leaves nouns unspoken when they're understood,
whether it's in the main clause or for a dependent clause. Why can't it do
this for a relative clause as well?

-- 
mIp'av yergho
bu''a'
baHwI'
IKAV chuch 'etlh

My modeling blog:          http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog:  http://bellerophon.blog.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160119/c9522044/attachment.html>