De'vID:

Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'}.

I'm afraid I can't understand this. The way I read it is "If we use
phasers we'll win, instead of using swords". Shouldn't there be a
{-chugh} on the {yan DIlo'} too?

You're right: saying it De'vID's way seems to say we use phasers, and we'll win instead of using swords. I don't think either version works.

SuStel:

Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so:
pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan qa'.
If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces swords.
I don't know whether this works in the more formal style, however.

I can't understand this either. Could you please explain the reasons
which make you have doubts as to whether this could work in the formal
style?

I misspoke a bit. The yan qa' version isn't the informal style; it's just the version instead-ing a noun instead of a sentence.

But now I don't think this quite works either, for a reason similar to De'vID's. It seems to say We win instead of swords, whatever that means.

I just don't see a good way of making an instead-construction conditional. We either need to break it into multiple sentences or get word from on high about how to do it.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name