I think you guys have gone overboard with this thin-ice argument that Klingon adverbials CAN BE TRANSLATED to apply to things other than either the verb (most commonly), or in special cases where the context clarifies WTF you are talking about, nouns.
A simpler truth is that your precious, exceptional English translations would only make sense if the English translation had the same context that the Klingon expression did, and if it HAD that context, you would, like the Klingon expression, not need the emphasis you are putting on it.
Why are you so angry?
I maintain that adverbials apply to verbs or to whole sentences, and if you want to weight the meaning toward specific non-verb words in the sentence, you need very special context, and if you have that context, you don’t need to add weight to make the English translation mean something other than what the Klingon sentence actually means, which is either a verb or whole-sentence application of the adverbial.
Did you miss the bit where I said I was using emphasis for illustrative purposes only, and that it did NOT represent actual emphasis in the sentences? The only point to it was to show that the interpretation of even and almost or vabDot and tlhoS could change depending on which part of the sentence was being treated as the independent variable.
Let's look at a canonical example. Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejjbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH. Kronos, Romulus, and even the puny Federation's precious Earth are all up for grabs. (Klingon Monopoly) Look at the vabDot here. The focus here is to say Kronos, Romulus, and even Earth! If the vabDot merely modified the verb, the focus would be VerbX and even acquire! That's clearly not what's going on here. The vabDot acts on the entire sentence to make the noun tera' stand out.
vabDot is just like je, except for its placement
and the extra connotation of unexpectedness. We are told this
explicitly. Let's take the TKD sentence qaleghpu' je I
also saw you, I saw you too. "As in English, the meaning of
such sentences is ambiguous: I and others saw you or I
saw you and others. The exact meaning is determined by
context. Let's replace je with vabDot: vabDot
qaleghpu' Even I saw you; I saw even you. Since we
know that vabDot is just je with the extra
connotation of unexpectedness, we should be able to see the same
ambiguity, and we do. Are we focused on the surprise of me (Even
I saw you) or you (I saw even you)? There's an
additional possibility which TKD doesn't address: qaleghpu' je
I also saw you (in addition to doing other things to or with
you); vabDot qaleghpu' I even saw you (in
addition to doing other things to or with you).
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name