"You run and jump."
Translation:bIqet 'ej bISup.
If we're going to be consistently pedantic, this must be translated bIqet bISup je, as opposed to the "correct" translation which really means 'you run and you jump', not 'you run and jump'. At least that's what it has been thus far.
The conjunction je is used to combine a list of nouns and appears at the end of the list: torgh mara HoD je "Torg, Mara, and the captain."
In this sentence we are combining two sentences into one bigger sentence. bIqet is a complete sentence and bISup is a complete sentence. These are not nouns, so you cannot use a noun conjunction. Instead you have to use the sentence conjunction 'ej and it gets places between the sentences, rather than after them. Thus you get the "correct" translation given above.
Since the pronouns are not generally used in Klingon, there is no difference when translation "You run and you jump" verses "you run and jump". Either way, you are connecting two sentences (or you can think of it as connecting two verbs, since the verb is the core of the sentence). You could add the pronoun if you wanted and then it becomes more obvious: bIqet SoH 'ej bISup SoH versus bIqet SoH 'ej bISup. But since the required prefix already tells us who is doing it, we don't need either SoH and the more typical way to translate both English sentences is just as bIqet 'ej bISup.
He's right about being pedantic, though. The course inconsistently allows less-than-literal translations without explanation.
Gadsden, here's where the course creators get their justification:
bISoptaH qoj bItlhutlhtaH You are eating and/or you are drinking.
bISoptaH pagh bItlhutlhtaH You are either eating or else you are drinking.
When the subject of both of the joined sentences is the same, the English translation may be reduced to a less choppy form, but Klingon does not allow this shortening. The pronominal prefix must be used with both verbs. Thus, the final two sentences above may be translated You are eating and/or drinking; You are either eating or drinking.(TKD)
Your allowed translations for this sentence are fine. Gadsden has noticed other sentences where the allowed translations are less flexible than these and is complaining that you are not "consistently pedantic" in requiring a certain level of literal translation.
For instance, if there were a sentence like bIjatlhHa'chugh qaHoH If you say the wrong thing, I will kill you, I bet that the course would not allow I will kill you if you say the wrong thing, even though the meaning is the same, and even though TKD gives this example as bIjatlhHa'chugh qaHoH or qaHoH bIjatlhHa'chugh If you say the wrong thing, I will kill you (but never mentions I will kill you if you say the wrong thing).
Ah. I see. Yes, we are mostly consistent in our own rules for how pedantic to be on various structures, but that can seem to be somewhat inconsistent through the whole course because we have decided to be more pedantic on some structures and less pedantic on others. For the most part we have been consistent with Duolingo's suggestions which, for instance, recommend not allowing elements to be switched in order unless grammatically required. But I'm glad we agree that this exercise is not an example of that type of thing.