tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 20 10:56:02 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "love"
> The problem I have with <bang> being only a noun translated "one who is
> loved" is in its single canon usage. There it is <bangwI'>. the <-wI'>
> is added to a VERB to make a NOUN that means "that which does whatever".
> If <bang> is only a noun then not only is <bangwI'> gramatically
> incorrect, it is needlessly redundant.
[more on this deleted....]
I'm sure many others will comment on this as well, but....
The suffix {-wI'} does indeed change a verb into a noun. BUT it ALSO is a
noun
suffix for "my" (when the thing being possessed is capable of language). So,
{bangwI'} doesn't mean "one who is loved," (which is what {bang} alone
means), but it means "my love" ("my one who is loved").
--Holtej