Read the Ca'Non sentence from the "Smithsonian Go Figure app": {tera jar Soch, DIS wa Hut jav Hut, maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS, wej logh lengwIpu pa'mey 'oH Apollo wamaH wa' ra'ghom bobcho Columbia'e'} "Apollo 11 Command Module, Columbia, was the living quarters for the three-person crew during most of the first manned lunar landing mission in July 1969". The {Qu' wa'DIch} is obviously the subject of {SaqmeH}. It can't be the {Qu' wa'DIch HochHom} since the goal wasn't for "almost all of the mission to land on the moon". And then we have the {HochHom turlu'taHvIS} which is used to express the "during most of the first manned lunar landing mission". However, since the subject of the {SaqmeH} is only the {Qu' wa'DIch}, shouldn't there be a comma right after it ? ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non holy Ca'Non
On 5/1/2019 11:23 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Read the Ca'Non sentence from the "Smithsonian Go Figure app":
{tera jar Soch, DIS wa Hut jav
Hut, maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch
HochHom turlu'taHvIS, wej logh
lengwIpu pa'mey 'oH Apollo wamaH wa' ra'ghom bobcho Columbia'e'}
"Apollo 11 Command Module, Columbia, was the living quarters for the three-person crew during most of the first manned lunar landing mission in July 1969".
The {Qu' wa'DIch} is obviously the subject of {SaqmeH}. It can't be the {Qu' wa'DIch HochHom} since the goal wasn't for "almost all of the mission to land on the moon".
And then we have the {HochHom turlu'taHvIS} which is used to express the "during most of the first manned lunar landing mission".
However, since the subject of the {SaqmeH} is only the {Qu' wa'DIch}, shouldn't there be a comma right after it ?
*maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS */while most of the first moon-landing mission was being carried out/ This is a single /while/ clause. *X turlu'taHvIS* /while one does X/ The X is a noun phrase, *maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom* /most of the first mission-to-land-on-the-moon./ A *SaqmeH Qu'* is a /landing mission,/ a /mission for landing./ Remember that purposes clauses can be attached to nouns that are not the subject of that clause. *Qu'* is not the subject of *SaqmeH.* 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. The fact that this verb is part of a dependent clause is irrelevant. It's the first moon-landing mission, *maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch.* We're only talking about /most/ of the mission: *maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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
On 5/1/2019 12:50 PM, mayqel qunen'oS 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..
I don't think it matters which way you interpret the *maSDaq.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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@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@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
On May 1, 2019, at 13:28, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Thirdly, {maS SaqmeH Qu’} is ungrammatical because you can’t put a verb in the middle of a noun-noun possessive construction.
I’m not sure if {SaqmeH} still totally counts as a verb here, for the purposes of a verb not being allowed in the middle of a noun-noun. I think {SaqmeH Qu'} is treated as a noun, grammatically. We have plenty of canonical noun phrases with {-meH}ed verbs like {ghojmeH mIw}, {DIlmeH Huch}, {voDmeH jan}, etc., where the verb is known to be transitive, and there are therefore a couple of different ways you could slice up something like {nay' DIlmeH Huch}.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. {nay’ DIlmeH Huch} is not a noun-noun construction. It’s not a “genitive” (termed “possessive” in TKD). It is money for-the-purpose-of-buying-a-dish-of-food. It’s money with a mission. Note that this is an uncommon construction, probably not justified by canon, because the general rule is that while a verb with {-meH} can describe the purpose of a noun or it can describe the purpose of a verb, there is a distinctive difference in form depending on whether it describes a noun or a verb. When it describes a noun, the verb with {-meH} will, in all examples I’ve seen, NOT HAVE A SUBJECT OR OBJECT. While a verb with {-meH} certainly can have a subject and/or a direct object, almost always, it does so only if it is describing the purpose of a verb, not a noun. Okrand doesn’t explicitly say this in TKD, but in his examples and subsequent explanations, he has expressed that purpose clauses describing nouns are basically as close to infinitives as verbs get in Klingon. It’s an “in-order-to-learn knife”, or less awkwardly translated a “training knife”. The translations are often gerunds. Now that I think about it, this is probably why he didn’t put {Human} where I put it in the translation because I don’t know of any example where he has given a verb with {-meH} either a subject or an object if it is describing the purpose of a noun. He’s done it for the purpose of the action of a verb, but not for a noun. If he had done it here, it probably would have been his first venture into this practice. It’s interesting that he did give it a locative. No subject. No object. But a locative. Fascinating... It was more important to him to follow this unspoken rule of not putting a subject on {SaqmeH Qu'} than it was for him to convey the meaning that the mission was “manned”. That explains why he dropped that detail, despite his intense attention to detail for the rest of the translation. Thank you, again, for bringing this to my attention. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 1, 2019, at 2:43 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 1, 2019, at 13:28, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Thirdly, {maS SaqmeH Qu’} is ungrammatical because you can’t put a verb in the middle of a noun-noun possessive construction.
I’m not sure if {SaqmeH} still totally counts as a verb here, for the purposes of a verb not being allowed in the middle of a noun-noun. I think {SaqmeH Qu'} is treated as a noun, grammatically. We have plenty of canonical noun phrases with {-meH}ed verbs like {ghojmeH mIw}, {DIlmeH Huch}, {voDmeH jan}, etc., where the verb is known to be transitive, and there are therefore a couple of different ways you could slice up something like {nay' DIlmeH Huch}. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/1/2019 3:13 PM, Will Martin wrote:
{nay’ DIlmeH Huch} is not a noun-noun construction. It’s not a “genitive” (termed “possessive” in TKD). It is money for-the-purpose-of-buying-a-dish-of-food. It’s money with a mission.
Note that this is an uncommon construction, probably not justified by canon, because the general rule is that while a verb with {-meH} can describe the purpose of a noun or it can describe the purpose of a verb, there is a distinctive difference in form depending on whether it describes a noun or a verb.
When it describes a noun, the verb with {-meH} will, in all examples I’ve seen, NOT HAVE A SUBJECT OR OBJECT.
Untrue. *qaSuchmeH 'eb*/opportunity for me to visit you. /http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Okay, so count up how many times he’s given an infinitive-like {-meH} verb describing a noun vs. how many times he’s given a verb with {-meH} describing a noun a subject and/or object. It’s certainly a strong trend, if not a law. Generally, looking at the use of {-meH} in canon, Okrand often makes a full purpose clause to describe the purpose of the action of a verb, but he nearly always uses a lone verb with {-meH} to give the purpose of a noun. Do we act prescriptively or descriptively? Do we take a single counter-example as cause to reverse an observed trend and forget it ever happened? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 1, 2019, at 3:18 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/1/2019 3:13 PM, Will Martin wrote:
{nay’ DIlmeH Huch} is not a noun-noun construction. It’s not a “genitive” (termed “possessive” in TKD). It is money for-the-purpose-of-buying-a-dish-of-food. It’s money with a mission.
Note that this is an uncommon construction, probably not justified by canon, because the general rule is that while a verb with {-meH} can describe the purpose of a noun or it can describe the purpose of a verb, there is a distinctive difference in form depending on whether it describes a noun or a verb.
When it describes a noun, the verb with {-meH} will, in all examples I’ve seen, NOT HAVE A SUBJECT OR OBJECT. Untrue.
qaSuchmeH 'eb opportunity for me to visit you. http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt <http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-01-18b-news.txt> -- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/1/2019 3:38 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Okay, so count up how many times he’s given an infinitive-like {-meH} verb describing a noun vs. how many times he’s given a verb with {-meH} describing a noun a subject and/or object. It’s certainly a strong trend, if not a law.
Generally, looking at the use of {-meH} in canon, Okrand often makes a full purpose clause to describe the purpose of the action of a verb, but he nearly always uses a lone verb with {-meH} to give the purpose of a noun.
Do we act prescriptively or descriptively? Do we take a single counter-example as cause to reverse an observed trend and forget it ever happened?
Don't throw the prescriptivist argument at me, mister "I know what Okrand said but it's just ugly." Okrand nearly always uses *-meH* to modify verbs (sentences) instead of nouns, so our pool of unambiguous examples is too small to declare a trend. But he has used it to modify nouns, and in both places he has used it with and without arguments. What we do is not tell people that they've done something ungrammatical when they clearly haven't. If you want to always use "infinite" purpose clauses on nouns and never "split" genitive phrases with modifying clauses, that's your prerogative, but there's ample evidence out there that the rules you're claiming aren't actually rules; they're just patterns you're overgeneralizing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/1/2019 2:28 PM, Will Martin wrote:
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.
That's not what this sentence says. It's talking about a *SaqmeH Qu'*/landing mission,/ not the entire mission of going, landing, exploring, and returning.
Thirdly, {maS SaqmeH Qu’} is ungrammatical because you can’t put a verb in the middle of a noun-noun possessive construction.
Says who? *SaqmeH Qu'* is a noun phrase, and noun phrases can count as the "noun" parts of a noun-noun construction. Are you saying that if I have a *pe'meH taj*/cutting knife, /I can't talk about the *jonwI' pe'meH taj*/engineer's cutting knife/?
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?
We have lots of these "infinitive" purpose clauses. *pe'meH taj*/cutting knife, /*ghojmeH taj*/boy's knife (learning knife),/ *qIpmeH Qatlh'a'*/difficult to hit? /*QongmeH qItI'nga Duj*/ K'Tinga-class sleeper ship, /*qa'meH vIttlhegh*/replacement proverb./ There is no trouble interpreting *SaqmeH Qu'* as /landing mission/ and *maSDaq SaqmeH Qu'* as /moon-landing mission./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/1/2019 2:55 PM, SuStel wrote:
Thirdly, {maS SaqmeH Qu’} is ungrammatical because you can’t put a verb in the middle of a noun-noun possessive construction.
Says who? *SaqmeH Qu'* is a noun phrase, and noun phrases can count as the "noun" parts of a noun-noun construction. Are you saying that if I have a *pe'meH taj*/cutting knife, /I can't talk about the *jonwI' pe'meH taj*/engineer's cutting knife/?
Here's another unambiguous counterexample: *loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH. */It waits... on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe/ (SkyBox 99) The interesting part is *He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq*/beside a passage, next to a way which one follows./ Here you have clearly have *He ghoSlu'bogh*/passage, way which one follows/ modifying *retlhDaq* /at the area next to/, where a verb comes between the component nouns. And of course there's the infamous *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'* /Romulan hunter-killer probe,/ a device made by Romulans, not one which hunts and kills Romulans. A noun-noun construction where one of the component noun phrases is *Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'.* Clearly, you can put a lot of non-nouns between terms in a noun-noun construction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Actually, the interesting part is that he starts with a main verb, then goes on to list locatives that apparently apply to the previously stated verb, suggesting that this must be poetry, since it defies all norms for Klingon grammar. We’d be hard pressed to find another example where he does this. It fits the English translation pretty well, but it’s not grammatical in Klingon. Locatives don’t follow the verbs to which they apply. So it doesn’t look like a great precedence-setting example for a verb in the middle of a noun-noun construction, unless we want to also accept that it’s fine for us to put locatives at the end of a sentence, now. Your second example carries a lot more weight. Clearly, that is a noun-noun construction {romulusngan nejwI’} with the second noun being described by {Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh}, which is also interesting, because it would be more typical of other canon to have said {romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI’ HoHbogh je.}, if I’m remembering the song lyrics correctly. Probably not. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 1, 2019, at 3:09 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/1/2019 2:55 PM, SuStel wrote:
Thirdly, {maS SaqmeH Qu’} is ungrammatical because you can’t put a verb in the middle of a noun-noun possessive construction. Says who? SaqmeH Qu' is a noun phrase, and noun phrases can count as the "noun" parts of a noun-noun construction. Are you saying that if I have a pe'meH taj cutting knife, I can't talk about the jonwI' pe'meH taj engineer's cutting knife?
Here's another unambiguous counterexample:
loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH. It waits... on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe (SkyBox 99)
The interesting part is He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq beside a passage, next to a way which one follows. Here you have clearly have He ghoSlu'bogh passage, way which one follows modifying retlhDaq at the area next to, where a verb comes between the component nouns.
And of course there's the infamous romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe, a device made by Romulans, not one which hunts and kills Romulans. A noun-noun construction where one of the component noun phrases is Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'. Clearly, you can put a lot of non-nouns between terms in a noun-noun construction.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On May 1, 2019, at 14:31, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Your second example carries a lot more weight. Clearly, that is a noun-noun construction {romulusngan nejwI’} with the second noun being described by {Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh}, which is also interesting, because it would be more typical of other canon to have said {romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI’ HoHbogh je.}, if I’m remembering the song lyrics correctly. Probably not.
You’re thinking of {yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw}. If we take that as an example of good grammar (I’m not convinced we should), it doesn’t necessarily tell us that we should say {Sambogh HoHbogh je}, since {yoH} and {matlh} are verbs of quality while {Sam} and {HoH} are transitive. It could be that the weird grammar in the song is only allowed for verbs of quality, or only in poetry, or something. We don’t have enough other examples to be sure. Anyway, yes, this is a good example to show that noun-noun constructions combine noun *phrases* and not just nouns. Otherwise, I think it would have had to have been something like {Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh romuluS nejwI'}.
*loS... qIb HeHDaq, 'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq 'oHtaH.*/ It waits... on the edge of the galaxy, beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe/ (SkyBox 99) On 5/1/2019 3:31 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Actually, the interesting part is that he starts with a main verb, then goes on to list locatives that apparently apply to the previously stated verb, suggesting that this must be poetry, since it defies all norms for Klingon grammar.
Oh come on! It's perfectly grammatical. Trim off the extraneous *loS:* *qIb HeHDaq*/on the edge of the galaxy/ *'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh*/to unknown regions of the universe/ *lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq*/beside a way one follows in order that one travels/ *'oHtaH*/it is/ This is a "to be" sentence with a long, nested locative and a shorter locative. The first locative is *qIb HeHDaq.* This specifies the location of Deep Space 9. The next locative is *'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq*/beside a passage to unknown regions of the universe./ Start with a noun: *retlhDaq*/beside/ (simple locative) Now look at a noun phrase: *He ghoSlu'bogh*/way which one follows /Add a purpose clause to this phrase: *lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh*/way which one follows in order to travel /Now invent a destination: *'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh*/to unknown regions of the universe /Put this destination on the traveling: *'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh*/way which one follows in order to travel to unknown regions of the universe /This is a noun phrase. Now use this to modify the original noun: *'u' SepmeyDaq Sovbe'lu'bogh lenglu'meH He ghoSlu'bogh retlhDaq*/beside the way which one follows in order to travel to unknown regions of the universe. / That's not poetry. That's just complicated.
We’d be hard pressed to find another example where he does this. It fits the English translation pretty well, but it’s not grammatical in Klingon. Locatives don’t follow the verbs to which they apply.
He has not done that here.
So it doesn’t look like a great precedence-setting example for a verb in the middle of a noun-noun construction, unless we want to also accept that it’s fine for us to put locatives at the end of a sentence, now.
No one has suggested such a thing.
Your second example carries a lot more weight. Clearly, that is a noun-noun construction {romulusngan nejwI’} with the second noun being described by {Sambogh ‘ej HoHbogh}, which is also interesting, because it would be more typical of other canon to have said {romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI’ HoHbogh je.}, if I’m remembering the song lyrics correctly. Probably not.
It would be more typical of other canon to have said *romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI' 'ej HoHbogh.* There is just one time where a *je* was used for something like this, and that WAS poetry. This is not. Klingon canon has examples of both the X Vbogh 'ej Wbogh Y and X vbogh Y 'ej Wbogh forms, but only the one song with the Wbogh, Ybogh je X form. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Excellent analysis of a very complex sentence. The only thing I’d add for educational purposes is that because of the word order for Klingon sentences, it’s really only context that associates the locative with the purpose clause. Grammatically, it could apply to either the purpose clause or “while” clause, or the main clause, but context tells us that the command module never made it to the moon, nor did 1/3 of the space travelers, so the locative only applies to the landing, which is the purpose of the mission. It’s the “in order to land on the Moon” mission, translated as “first manned lunar landing mission". It’s interesting that the Klingon translation doesn’t actually say that it’s a manned mission. They could have explicitly added {nuv} or some such as subject of {SaqmeH}. It could have been more explicit, like: {tera’ jar Soch, DIS wa’ Hut jav Hut, maSDaq SaqmeH Human Qu’ wa’DIch HochHom turlu’taHvIS, wej logh lengwI’pu’ pa’mey ‘oH Apollo wa’maH wa’ ra’ghom bobcho Columbia’e’.} "Earth month seven, year 1969, while carrying out most of the first in-order-that-a-human-lands-on-the-moon mission, the Apollo 11 command module Columbia was the three space travelers' rooms.” It’s even more interesting since, if you are familiar with the command module, you probably would have considered it to be one room, avoiding the whole issue of whether the main verb should have been {‘oH} or {bIH}. So, the time stamp applies to all the clauses, while the locative applies only to the purpose clause. And they left off a significant word. Not a bad translation, though. Meanwhile, that one missing word… Yeah, I can hear it now: “That’s one small step. One giant leap.” It wouldn’t have made much sense without mentioning that a person did it. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 1, 2019, at 11:34 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/1/2019 11:23 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Read the Ca'Non sentence from the "Smithsonian Go Figure app":
{tera jar Soch, DIS wa Hut jav Hut, maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS, wej logh lengwIpu pa'mey 'oH Apollo wamaH wa' ra'ghom bobcho Columbia'e'}
"Apollo 11 Command Module, Columbia, was the living quarters for the three-person crew during most of the first manned lunar landing mission in July 1969".
The {Qu' wa'DIch} is obviously the subject of {SaqmeH}. It can't be the {Qu' wa'DIch HochHom} since the goal wasn't for "almost all of the mission to land on the moon".
And then we have the {HochHom turlu'taHvIS} which is used to express the "during most of the first manned lunar landing mission".
However, since the subject of the {SaqmeH} is only the {Qu' wa'DIch}, shouldn't there be a comma right after it ? maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS while most of the first moon-landing mission was being carried out
This is a single while clause.
X turlu'taHvIS while one does X
The X is a noun phrase, maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom most of the first mission-to-land-on-the-moon.
A SaqmeH Qu' is a landing mission, a mission for landing. Remember that purposes clauses can be attached to nouns that are not the subject of that clause. Qu' is not the subject of SaqmeH.
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. The fact that this verb is part of a dependent clause is irrelevant.
It's the first moon-landing mission, maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch.
We're only talking about most of the mission: maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
Daniel Dadap -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin