Questions about canonicity, wI', and a word

[KlingonAndorianOrion]

First, if a word is properly constructed using material found in one of the canon sources is it considered canon?

Second, if wI' can imply "thing which does" and possession how does one know which is which is which?  I may have already figured this out as I just noted "thing which does" wI' is attached to verbs to make nouns while the other wI' is attached to nouns to show possession.  Is this correct?

Finally, in A Burning House I find the word jeghpu'wI' defined as conquered peoples.  Is this correct?  It seems that literally it would mean "my many people capable of speech surrender," but its also attaching two nooun suffixes to a verb which seems incorrect (though I haven't reached the verb section of the dictionary yet so maybe that clears it up) To get the definition given in the book wouldn't jeghwI'pu' be more correct?  It would be literally "many people capable of speech who surrender," and it would use wI' to turn the verb jegh into a noun and then pluralize it with pu'.

[tesseraktik]

First, if a word is properly constructed using material found in one of the canon sources is it considered canon?

That's up to each and every Klingonist, but I think the answer you'll most commonly get is "No"; canon is strictly that which is found in canon, which is usually defined as anything produced or approved by Marc Okrand.

Second, if wI' can imply "thing which does" and possession how does one know which is which is which?  I may have already figured this out as I just noted "thing which does" wI' is attached to verbs to make nouns while the other wI' is attached to nouns to show possession.  Is this correct?

That's precisely right.  That being said, there are a lot of homographs in tlhIngan Hol, and - as is the case in natural languages - context is usually necessary to root out ambiguities.

Finally, in A Burning House I find the word jeghpu'wI' defined as conquered peoples.  Is this correct?  It seems that literally it would mean "my many people capable of speech surrender," but its also attaching two nooun suffixes to a verb which seems incorrect (though I haven't reached the verb section of the dictionary yet so maybe that clears it up) To get the definition given in the book wouldn't jeghwI'pu' be more correct?  It would be literally "many people capable of speech who surrender," and it would use wI' to turn the verb jegh into a noun and then pluralize it with pu'.

jegh is a verb meaning "he/she/it/they surrender(s)".  When attached to nouns, -pu' is a pluralizer, but as a verb suffix it marks the past tense.  -wI' then makes it "one who does", so jeghpu'wI' would be "one who has surrendered".
I find it a bit odd that they use jeghpu', rather than jeghta', as -ta' is used for actions that were carried out purposefully, and I don't know how one goes about surrendering unpurposefully.  That being said, perhaps "surrender" is only a close translation of jegh, rather than a perfect one, so perhaps it is possible to jegh "by accident"
Also, -ghach is usually used instead of -wI' when the phrase before it (in this case jeghpu') has suffixes.  However, there are some exceptions to this rule (for instance, ghojmoH, "to cause to learn", or "to teach", apparently became a common enough phrase to become a new root word in its own right, wherefore ghojmoHwI' is often used instead of ghojmoHghach), and I suppose there may be some cultural/historical/jladsjalhfkah reason for this exception, as well.

[KlingonAndorianOrion]

Thanks.

[Qunchuy]

I find it a bit odd that they use jeghpu', rather than jeghta', as -ta' is used for actions that were carried out purposefully, and I don't know how one goes about surrendering unpurposefully.  That being said, perhaps "surrender" is only a close translation of jegh, rather than a perfect one, so perhaps it is possible to jegh "by accident"

-pu' ("perfective") doesn't mean something was done by accident. It just leaves unsaid whether or not it was accomplished on purpose. Since the focus in jeghpu'wI' is on the state of "having surrendered" rather than on the intentional action, using -ta' ("accomplished") would be a slight distraction from the idea.

Also, -ghach is usually used instead of -wI' when the phrase before it (in this case jeghpu') has suffixes.  However, there are some exceptions to this rule (for instance, ghojmoH, "to cause to learn", or "to teach", apparently became a common enough phrase to become a new root word in its own right, wherefore ghojmoHwI' is often used instead of ghojmoHghach), and I suppose there may be some cultural/historical/jladsjalhfkah reason for this exception, as well.

The nominalizer -ghach creates a word which refers to the action itself, not the agent which carries out the action. ghojmoHghach would mean approximately "teaching", not "teacher".

[tesseraktik]

The nominalizer -ghach creates a word which refers to the action itself, not the agent which carries out the action. ghojmoHghach would mean approximately "teaching", not "teacher".

Ah, interesting.  I'd seen some examples suggesting that, but I wasn't sure if it was used that way generally.  After consulting TKD, however, it seems you're right; I guess I was confused because Klingonska Akademien's suffix guide (which I use frequently as a quick reference) simply states "Makes a noun out of a verb with one or more suffixes attached.", making it sound a bit like "What you use instead of -wI' if the verb has suffixes."

Thanks for straightening me out; for the longest time, I've wished Klingon had somehting like an action abstractor...  ...and now it appears it does!