[tlhIngan Hol] neH "only" on nouns used in apposition

[mayqel qunen'oS]

ghunchu'wI':
> romuluSnganpu'vam quvHa'mo' bech jogh Hoch
> jogh Hoch bechmoH romuluSnganpu'vam quvHa' neH

Although this would be a way to work around the matter at hand,
unfortunately it doesn't answer the original question.

Anyway, I've rethought this..

First of all, I noticed that in all the apposition examples I can
think of, almost always the second noun can be placed in
brackets/dashes. For example we can say:

Dujvam, toQwI'vam' wIQaw'nIS

Which could be also written as:

Dujvam -toQwI'vam- wIQaw'nIS
Dujvam (toQwI'vam) wIQaw'nIS

So suppose we wrote:

Dujvammo' toQwI'vammo' maHeDpu'

This could also be written as:

Dujvammo' -toQwI'vammo'- maHeDpu'
Dujvammo' (toQwI'vammo') maHeDpu'

Now, the first question which comes to mind is whether in nouns used
in apposition, we would need to repeat the suffixes. And I gather that
the answer is "no", since I don't see any problem if we wrote:

Dujna'vammo' toQwI'Heyvammo' maHeDpu'
Dujna'vammo' -toQwI'Heyvammo'- maHeDpu'
Dujna'vammo' (toQwI'Heyvammo') maHeDpu'

For "because of this definite vessel, because this apparent bird of
prey, we retreated".

Since we don't need to repeat the same suffixes, perhaps we could write:

Dujvammo' toQwI'vam maHeDpu'
Dujvammo' -toQwI'vam- maHeDpu'
Dujvammo' (toQwI'vam) maHeDpu'

And although there's no {-mo'} in the second noun, either the change
in the speaker's voice, or the brackets/dashes in written speech,
would/could convey that the toQwI', is indeed the Duj we're talking
about.

However, in this case, I can't get used to the sight of two nouns in a
row with a type-5 suffix on the first of them, although I know that
they aren't a noun-noun construction where each one of the nouns
refers to something different. Perhaps it's something which is indeed
correct, but it's something that seems weird.

The reason I'm writing all this is to come to the conclusion, that the
same "weirdness" that I feel in the example just mentioned, is the
same weirdness that I feel when the thing in question is the adverbial
{neH} "only":

If I wrote:

Dujvammo' neH toQwI'vammo' maHeDpu'
only because of this vessel, this bird of prey, we retreated

I'd feel that something is missing from the second appositioned noun;
the way I understand apposition, is that both nouns are of equal
"power/significance/importance", since after all they *both* refer to
the same thing. But in this example, not repeating the {neH} after the
{toQwI'vammo'}, gives me the impression that the {toQwI'vammo'} is of
less significance compared to the {Dujvammo'}.

Of course I may be wrong in all this, but unless someone has some
further insight on this matter, then for the reason mentioned, I
decided to be repeating the neH after each noun used in apposition,
thus writing:

Dujvammo' neH toQwI'vammo' neH maHeDpu'

The only "problem" I see in this, is that perhaps the sentence sounds
somewhat "overstuffed" with the two {neH}s.  On the other hand though,
perhaps this is something which is just an impression of mine, or just
something requiring a little getting used to.

~ Dana'an
If you lack the courage to fight an ancient cat
then perhaps you should retire to your bed