So one of the sample sentences Dr. Okrand provides in the Klingon Dictionary is jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe’.  This is translated as “I’m lost” but I would literally read it as “I do not know the place here where I am.”

Strictly speaking, this usage of <-bogh> is a little at odds with how it is described in the grammatical sketch.  Granted, the sample sentences there are limited to situations where the headnoun is the subject or object of the relative clause. 

So here are my questions.  While I know these aren’t addressed in the Klingon Dictionary, I have no idea if these have been addressed elsewhere by Dr. Okrand.

(1) Are relative clauses of this type limited to the three nouns that don’t take <-Daq>: naDev, pa’, and Dat?  I ask this only because Klingon relative clauses seem to be unable to incorporate <-Daq> or <-vo’> in their construction.  But “I am here” is simply ” naDev jIHtaH “.  So it’s easy to make the jump to the clause “here where I am” as ” jIHtaHbogh naDev .”  But could I say, for example, ” ghaHtaHbogh jagh Duj vIQaw’pu’ “?  The intended meaning would be something akin to: I destroyed the ship on which the enemy was located.  Does that work?

(2) Can you only use this construction with pronouns acting as verbs for location, or can you do this for any verb?  For example, could I translate “the place there where we ate gagh” as ” qagh wISoppu’bogh pa’ “?

As always, thanks in advance for any assistance.