SuStel:

> The second phrase you wrote isn't so that

> the coffee doesn't spill; it's so that in

> order that the coffee doesn't spill. 

I've been trying to resist the urge to ask this, but I can't. At least I resisted for three whole hours..

Suppose I write:

{HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH, vaj Qoy'be' qa'vIn, ngaDmoHwI' le' lo'lu'}

"In order that something doesn't move the glass, so the coffee won't spill, a special base can be used"

Aside the fact that there's a parenthetical phrase, is there something wrong? Does this sentence make sense?

Yes, there's something wrong. vaj Qoy'be' qa'vIn is an independent clause, not part of the purpose clause HIvje' vIHmoHbe'lu'meH. In English, so the coffee won't spill can be interpreted as an independent clause sometimes, but here it means so THAT the coffee won't spill, which is a dependent clause.

It's like how you can't say this in Klingon:

qaSamchugh 'ej bIqetbe', qajon. If I find you and you don't run, I will catch you. (This is ungrammatical.)

You don't run can be interpreted as an independent clause in other contexts, but here it's just one component of the conjoined conditions: IF (I find you + you don't run). It's not (if I find you) + (you don't run).

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name