On 15 August 2017 at 16:26, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

nuqjatlh? Where does it say the same verb has to be repeated twice?

The example in TKD is {qaleghpu' je}. There's no repetition of {legh}.

There is an implied repetition. You don't use je on a verb without context (which TKD mentions explicitly for once). Inherent in the idea of je is the notion that there is some other thing that was previously said to which the je is referring.

je used with verbs REMAINS A NOUN CONJUNCTION. You are conjoining the nouns present in either the object positions of the verbs or the subject positions of the verbs. I AND others saw you or I saw you AND others. Let's suppose a full context like so:

latlh vIleghpu'; SoH qaleghpu' je
I saw others; I also saw you = I saw you and others

This is equivalent to:

latlh SoH je Saleghpu'
I saw you and others

The other interpretation of qaleghpu' je goes like this:

SoH nIleghpu' latlh; SoH qaleghpu' jIH je
others saw you; I saw you too = I and others saw you

SoH pIleghpu' latlh jIH je
I and others saw you

So to reiterate: je is a NOUN CONJUNCTION being placed after a verb to conjoin one of the nouns of that verb with the equivalently positioned noun in another verb.

Now, TKD doesn't explicitly say that the verbs have to be identical, but that's a pretty safe bet considering what it means. But then we get the SkyBox card with

ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.

What nouns are being conjoined here? None that I can see; the subject tajHommey seems to be carried over to the next verb: pe'laH je  they [the small blades] can also cut. Here, je is functioning identically to the sentence conjunction 'ej: ghop luQan tajHommey 'ej pe'laH the small blades protect the hand and they can cut.

It is my opinion that this sentence is in error due to the casual way in which we English speakers toss around the word also. Okrand was thinking, je = also, even though the also he was thinking of was the 'ej variety. Doubtless he could come up with some justification for this text, but so far he hasn't, and it appears to be a simple error.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name