For some reason, relative clauses appear in some of the more bizarre constructions in canon Klingon. Two canon examples of apparently illegal relative clauses are frequently pointed out in list discussions:

• Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe' I do not understand what you just said (KCD)

• yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' the warrior brave and true (The Warriors' Anthem)

While the first sentence was not actually used in the KCD program, the sentence was recorded and spoken by Okrand, so is assumed by most to be canon. The second sentence is part of the Warriors' Anthem, translated into Klingon by Okrand, and is thus also canon. The problem here lies with the lack of head nouns on both relative clauses. In the first case, the main verb - vIyajbe' - appears to agree in object with a noun that, quite simply, does not exist; in the second case, the conjunction je appears to link two relative clauses in a manner normally reserved for nouns.

The solution to the problem:

• yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI': While somewhat of a sneaky way out, we can say that this construct probably is either an older form of Klingon - much that is ritual about battle is also associated with no' Hol - or artistic licence, since the stress of yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' (stress: HLHLHLH) scans better than yoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh (stress: HLLHHHL).

• Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe': This is more difficult to deal with. It is the only example of a so-called headless relative clause anywhere in canon Klingon. vIyajbe' appears to agree with a verb, impossible in normal Klingon.

• In the canon sentence SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh tea which is SuD and light, wovbogh appears at first glance to be another headless relative. But this construct may occur because both clauses refer to one head, which by definition must occur either as part of the first clause (as in SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh) or the second (as in another phrase from KCD, romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe).

• Both constructs should probably be recast until more is understood about the phenomenon of relative clauses as nominals. It may be prudent to know how these types of sentences are interpreted; however, even if they are both taken as canon, they are both sufficiently rare to at least raise eyebrows, and thus should probably be avoided. These are some possible recasts:

• yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' becomes yoHbogh SuvwI' 'ej matlhbogh;

• Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe' could become mu'tlhegh Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe' or even nuqjatlh? qayajbe'.

This question and answer comes from the KLI Wiki.