[Tlhingan-hol] tlhInganpu'

[De'vID]

Qov:
> I’ll chime with the caution that the “headless relative clause” is
> unattributed in Klingon.  The noun that is the subject or object of the verb
> with –bogh has to be explicit in order for it to be the subject or object of
> another verb.
>
> ? neHbogh chargh tlhIngan
> Doch neHbogh chargh tlhIngan =  a Klingon conquers the thing that s/he wants
>
> We could say {ngoQ luneHbogh} or {Doch luneHbogh}, but I don’t think we even
> need that.  How about we substitute {ngoQ} or {chabal} for {Doch neHbogh}?
>
> chabal chargh tlhIngan = A Klingon conquers that which s/he desires.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but the canonical
rendition of this (TKW p.149) uses {vay'} as the head noun. I won't
quote it so as not to spoil it for anyone who wants to try to express
the idea themselves.

-- 
De'vID