On May 30, 2019, at 10:07, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

But he isn’t doing that. This isn’t a chain of SAOs

Oops, reading your message again I don’t think you were talking about a chain of SAOs, but two 'e' pronouns referring to the same sentence. But what he wrote is still not what you’re suggesting: the two 'e' pronouns each refer to different sentences.

I think charghwI' was thrown by the odd punctuation.

DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov dogvam, nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je dogvam

I would have punctuated this like so:

DaleghlaH 'e' Sov dogvam; nISwI' Daghaj 'e' Sov je dogvam.

I recommend to mayqel that he not separate the two sentences of a sentence-as-object with semicolons. The semicolon is used to show that two separate sentences are related. In the Klingon SAO, the two sentences aren't just related; the first sentence is actually dependent on the second sentence. The first sentence may not even be true, depending on what the second sentence says about it. (E.g., jIpuj 'e' vItem I deny that I'm weak.) The relationship between sentences in an SAO is much closer than a semicolon would suggest.

The semicolon is also a stronger separator than a comma. If you've got a sentence of the form

    WWWW; XXXX, YYYY; ZZZZ.

then a normal reading would suggest you've got three ideas here. Idea 1 is WWWW, idea 2 is XXXX, YYYY, and idea 3 is ZZZZ.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name