De'vID:
> It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written.
> {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors,"
> {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?"
> {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
Ok, I can understand this.
But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences.
They *are* in the same sentence. Ignoring the appositives, that sentence is {tlhIH tlhIH je}, a vocative (an exclamation).
A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?"
B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors,"
C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?"
B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!"
There are four sentences here: A, B, C, and D. Sentence B gets interrupted by sentence C, and then resumes.
There is no new grammar here. I repeat: there is no new grammar here.
The fact that sometimes, when a person is speaking, they'll interrupt something they're saying mid-sentence, say something else, and then resume the original sentence, is not something that can or needs to be formulated into a rule of grammar. It's just a feature of any language. You can do this in English, or in Greek, but you won't find a rule in a grammar textbook book for English or Greek telling you how to do this.
So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb, bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}.
The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one.