A clause beginning with ka-annamā may portray an earlier scene by means of a comparison. Where that comparison describes how the bearer appears or acts, the second expression can carry circumstantial force despite the absence of a separate wāw.
The particle's own comparative meaning contributes to rhetorical cohesion. This illustrates why a merely mechanical test—“is there a wāw at the beginning of the second clause?”—is inadequate. The correct judgment requires both the actual syntax and the intended image of the passage.