ghunchu'wI':

romuluSnganpu'vam quvHa'mo' bech jogh Hoch jogh Hoch bechmoH romuluSnganpu'vam quvHa' neH

Although this would be a way to work around the matter at hand, unfortunately it doesn't answer the original question. Anyway, I've rethought this.. First of all, I noticed that in all the apposition examples I can think of, almost always the second noun can be placed in brackets/dashes. For example we can say: Dujvam, toQwI'vam' wIQaw'nIS Which could be also written as: Dujvam -toQwI'vam- wIQaw'nIS Dujvam (toQwI'vam) wIQaw'nIS So suppose we wrote: Dujvammo' toQwI'vammo' maHeDpu' This could also be written as: Dujvammo' -toQwI'vammo'- maHeDpu' Dujvammo' (toQwI'vammo') maHeDpu' Now, the first question which comes to mind is whether in nouns used in apposition, we would need to repeat the suffixes. And I gather that the answer is "no", since I don't see any problem if we wrote: Dujna'vammo' toQwI'Heyvammo' maHeDpu' Dujna'vammo' -toQwI'Heyvammo'- maHeDpu' Dujna'vammo' (toQwI'Heyvammo') maHeDpu' For "because of this definite vessel, because this apparent bird of prey, we retreated". Since we don't need to repeat the same suffixes, perhaps we could write: Dujvammo' toQwI'vam maHeDpu' Dujvammo' -toQwI'vam- maHeDpu' Dujvammo' (toQwI'vam) maHeDpu' And although there's no {-mo'} in the second noun, either the change in the speaker's voice, or the brackets/dashes in written speech, would/could convey that the toQwI', is indeed the Duj we're talking about. However, in this case, I can't get used to the sight of two nouns in a row with a type-5 suffix on the first of them, although I know that they aren't a noun-noun construction where each one of the nouns refers to something different. Perhaps it's something which is indeed correct, but it's something that seems weird. The reason I'm writing all this is to come to the conclusion, that the same "weirdness" that I feel in the example just mentioned, is the same weirdness that I feel when the thing in question is the adverbial {neH} "only": If I wrote: Dujvammo' neH toQwI'vammo' maHeDpu' only because of this vessel, this bird of prey, we retreated I'd feel that something is missing from the second appositioned noun; the way I understand apposition, is that both nouns are of equal "power/significance/importance", since after all they *both* refer to the same thing. But in this example, not repeating the {neH} after the {toQwI'vammo'}, gives me the impression that the {toQwI'vammo'} is of less significance compared to the {Dujvammo'}. Of course I may be wrong in all this, but unless someone has some further insight on this matter, then for the reason mentioned, I decided to be repeating the neH after each noun used in apposition, thus writing: Dujvammo' neH toQwI'vammo' neH maHeDpu' The only "problem" I see in this, is that perhaps the sentence sounds somewhat "overstuffed" with the two {neH}s. On the other hand though, perhaps this is something which is just an impression of mine, or just something requiring a little getting used to. ~ Dana'an If you lack the courage to fight an ancient cat then perhaps you should retire to your bed

SuStel:

(Hint: we don't know the answers to these questions.)

Ok, I understand; thanks. It's just strange, that we don't have answers to such seemingly/apparently simple questions. The more I use klingon, the more questions appear, questions that don't have a Ca'Non answer, and this is killing me. ~ Dana'an remain klingon

SuStel:

I daresay you know all the rules that are known by anyone.

qatlho'! muquvmoH mu'meylIj. Do'Ha', wej, tlhIngan laHqoqwIj vIvoqlaH. aspect vIyajHa'ba'; jIqontaHvIS, pIj 'utbe'bogh mu'mey vIlo', 'ej vabDot 'op pab chut vIyajlaw', wej, chutmeyvam vIyajchu'pu'. tlhIngan Hol vIlo'laH vIneHbe'; tlhIngan Hol *vIlo'laHchu'* vIneH. 'op tlhIngan Hol vIghoj vIneHbe'; tlhIngan Hol *Hoch* vIghojchu' vIneH. vaj qaStaHvIS latlh poH law'qu', jIqeqnISba'.. ~ Dana'an remain klingon