[tlhIngan Hol] Apollo mission sentence

[Will Martin]

First, they couldn’t omit {-Daq} because {Saq} doesn’t mean “land on”. It just means “land, set down on land (like a bird)”. There is no locative direct object, like {ghoS}. The Moon is the location of the landing, not the direct object of the action of landing.

Second, they didn’t carry out the mission on the Moon. The purpose of the mission was to land on the Moon, so the “on the Moon” location applies only to the purpose of the mission, not the carrying out of the mission. They carried out the mission from the launch from the surface of the Earth, to landing in the ocean and everywhere along the long, loopy path in between. The mission was not complete until the astronauts were safe at home and the moon rocks and photographic film were delivered to the appropriate entities on Earth.

Thirdly, {maS SaqmeH Qu’} is ungrammatical because you can’t put a verb in the middle of a noun-noun possessive construction.

I have no problem with {maSDaq SaqmeH Qu’} meaning “The mission which has the purpose of [something] landing on the moon. It is a little ambiguous because without a stated subject for {Saq}, you could interpret it as “In order that the mission lands on the Moon…”, but then we’d have to find something later to apply this purpose to, and there aren’t any good candidates. Besides, how does a mission land on the Moon?

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On May 1, 2019, at 12:50 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SuStel:
> > If that mission happens at the moon, it is  
> > a maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' landing mission  
> > on the moon. The locative is added to the  
> > verb as usual.
> 
> If I understand your analysis correctly, the {maSDaq} refers to the {SaqmeH Qu'}.
> 
> Isn't it strange though ?
> 
> Lets take just the phrase {maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS}
> 
> Couldn't we understand this too, as the {maSDaq} describing the place where the {turlu'taHvIS} takes place ?
> 
> If the intent was for the {maSDaq} to refer to the {SaqmeH Qu'}, instead of the {turlu'taHvIS}, why not omit the {-Daq} altogether ?
> 
> Then we would have {maS SaqmeH Qu'} meaning "landing mission of the moon", which I can't *feel* any different from "landing mission on the moon".
> 
> Having the {-Daq}ed noun referring to the {-meH}ed noun, just messes me up, is all..
> 
> ~ m. qunen'oS 
> klingon is a work of art 
> all other conlangs are crap
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190501/70d77005/attachment.htm>