I don’t get {‘e’ vIwIvmo’.} SAO, as I’ve always understood it, consists of two complete sentences linked by the pronoun. The second sentence here is a dependent clause. Maybe this is just informal speech, but it seems ungrammatical, as if this is proper grammar for answering a question, but I’m not sure that’s the case.

Consider in English the difference between two answers to “Why are you sad?”:

1. "Because my nephew just died."

2. “My nephew just died.”

The first version doesn’t add any meaning, and it’s not really grammatically complete. Any answer to a “Why” question is already known to be a reason, so you don’t need to begin it with “Because…”

There is plenty of evidence to show that when TKD speaks of "sentences," it really refers to any verbal clause.

paq'batlh has examples of using 'e' in a dependent clause.

qeylIS Qaw’ ‘e’ nIDmeH
    yerDaj weH molor
    ‘ej juH qachDaj meQmoH

Molor did not destroy Kahless
    By burning his house
    Or ravaging his lands.

Hoch qImmoH mu’meyDaj
    ghob ‘ach ‘ej val
    yIntaH ‘e’ luleghmo’ chaH mer

All were bemused by his words,
    Wise and full of spirit,
    And astonished to see him alive.

le’yo’raj nIHlu’ta’mo’ penoD jatlh qeylIS
    nuHmeyraj tIQorgh
    watlh ‘Iwraj ‘e’ lu’aghmo’ nuHmey jej

About avenging their stolen pride,
    About caring for their weapons,
    For they represent the purity of their blood.

jatlh ‘e’ mevDI’ qeylIS, lop
    chaq tugh batlh Heghmo’
    ‘ej chaq tugh charghmo’

After Kahless’s words, they celebrate,
    For they may soon die with honor!
    For they may soon be victorious!

veqlarghvo’ narghbogh loD
    chutDaj bIv ‘e’ ngIlbogh loD
    DaH pongDaj Sov qotar

Now Kotar has the name
    Of the one who eluded Fek’lhr,
    And dared to defy his rules.

I'll stop here. There are undoubtedly more.

Now, if you're concerned that the dependent clause is never followed up by a main clause, I'd just chalk that up to informal speech, as you suggest.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name