Skybox 2:

{lI'qu' tlhIngan may' taj. not Hub'eghrupHa' lo'wI'. taj DopmeyDaq
nargh cha' tajHom. ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.

De'vID:

But this can be explained by interpreting {pe'laH je} as "they also (in addition to the main blade) cut", which does match
the English translation of "another set of cutting edges".

Very interesting comments. However, lets approach it from another angle.

As I understand the adverbial use of {je}, as it is described in tkd, and as nIqolay Q explained, we need to have the same verb, repeated twice.

However, in the skybox example, we have a {je} which follows the verb {pe'laH}, without having seen the verb {pe'} anywhere else in the preceding sentences.

Even the knife, is being referred to as {may' taj}, and not {pe'meH taj}. Granted, since the subject is a "battle knife", and not a "cutting knife", one indeed expects to see {may' taj}. Regardless though, the fact remains, that we do not have a {pe'} in the preceeding sentences, not even in the form of a {-meH}ed noun.

I understand the possibility, that since the entirety of this sentence concerns a knife, it would be possible for the {pe'laH je}, to actually mean "they also (in addition to the main blade) cut".

But the important fact -according to my opinion-, is that regardless of the english translation, we have an adverbial {je} used not on a single verb which remains the same and is repeated twice, but on the second of two different verbs.

So, the question now is:

If we saw only the klingon sentence, of Skybox 2, without seeing the english translation, wouldn't it be sufficient evidence to allow us to use the {je}, not only in cases where the verb remains the same ?

qunnoq