I tried to translate nobHa' with took back. So is this not a valid translation? It is definitely different fromreturn, give back, which is the correct answer, but I thought it would fit the 'un-give' meaning.
Take back is a perfectly fine translation of nobHa'. The sentence creator probably just didn't think of that particular turn of phrase.
I can think of two meanings of "Lurveng took back the robot" -- either that Lurveng had the robot in her possession but then took it back to the store where she had bought it, or that Lurveng worked in a robot store and someone returned the robot to her and she took it back (= accepted it) on behalf of the store.
From my understanding of nobHa', it only means the first of those -- i.e. give back, not receive back.
It is defined in Klingon for the Galactic Traveler as give back, return.
It is used in The Klingon Way in Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo' Don't trust Ferengi who give back money.
Both these sources agree with you.
(Note: that example sentence has one or two errors in it. It should be tIvoqQo'. It should probably also be lunobHa'bogh, unless there's some way that the mass noun Huch can be considered plural.)
Thank you all for the feedback!
My confusion derived from the definition of nob as "gives", and the -Ha' suffix meanig of "undo, do badly".
So I expected that undoing the nob, the giving, would be "taking back". But as the sources we have indicate it means give back, I assume that the "give" meaning is only an approxymation of the meaning, and that indeed the opposite of nob is to give back. That may be corroborated by the fact that nob also means "gift" as a noun. So if the meaning has the semantic of "offer something as a gift", the opposite is "to refuse the gift, giving it back".
I am not sure I am making sense for anyone else, but this may be how I can remember this! :)