<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/27/2021 8:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJ9d+8YXYE=HrQq3AEj5YEkW0j26EVkM29Z1iiHGuYWOQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div dir="auto">
            <div dir="auto">Suppose we want to say:</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">"In order that something doesn't move the
              glass, so that the coffee inside won't spill, a special
              base can be used".</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            One option is to write:
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH, 'ej qa'vIn
              Qoy'moHbe'lu'meH, ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'.</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">But I wonder.. Couldn't we use {vaj} instead
              of {'ej}?</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH, vaj qa'vIn
              Qoy'moHbe'lu'meH, ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'.</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">In the first option the exact meaning is
              "... and in order that the coffee doesn't spill", while on
              the second option the meaning is "... so that the coffee
              doesn't spill".</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">Granted, not much of a difference either
              way, but I wonder if there could be any argument against
              "joining" {-meH} clauses with {vaj}.</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Only the argument that <b>vaj</b> is not a conjunction. The
      second phrase you wrote isn't <i>so that the coffee doesn't
        spill;</i> it's <i>so that in order that the coffee doesn't
        spill.</i> It's a bit convoluted.</p>
    <p>I think this comes from your liberal splicing of parenthetical
      phrases in the middle of sentences. If understood as a
      parenthetical phrase, it makes sense, though TKD doesn't offer any
      rules for parenthetical phrases and canonical examples of them are
      hard to come by.</p>
    <p>I might split this into two sentences.</p>
    <p><b>HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH, ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'. Qoy' qa'vIn 'e'
        bot.<br>
      </b><i>In order for the glass not to move, a special stabilizer is
        used. It prevents the coffee from spilling.</i><br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
  </body>
</html>