tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 22 23:45:41 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "love"



>From: "Kevin A. Geiselman, Knight Errant" <[email protected]>
>Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 17:14:02 -0400 (EDT)

>Unto all assembled,

>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.

>Without knowing in advance what <bang> meant, I would have to infer from
>it's usage in <bangwI'> that it was a VERB and that <bangwI'> is "one who
><bang>s" (so to speak). 

>So, <bang> must also be a VERB, or at least must once have been a verb
>from which the usage <bangwI'> would have evolved.

Sorry if you've been dinged on this a million times already, but I'm
Grammarian and I'm supposed to do this too.

You missed something. The "-wI'" suffix you see is *NOT* the Type 9 verb
suffix "-wI'".  It's the identical-looking type 4 *noun* suffix "-wI'" that
means "my..."  In this case, "my beloved."  Recall that for things which
are capable of using language (like loved ones, unless your tastes run in
certain directions), the suffix is "-wI'" and not "-wIj", unless you want
to be insulting.

So, no, we still have no evidence that "bang" is anything but a noun, and
that's how it's used in the line you quote.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kordite, Intelligence Officer, IKV Dark Justice, Klingon Assault Group



~mark



Back to archive top level