tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 28 09:43:08 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "love"
- From: HoD trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "love"
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 21:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Kevin A. Geiselman, Knight Errant" at Aug 20, 94 05:14:02 pm
Korditevo':
> 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.
Your logic is very good, except it neglects one *VERY* important point:
-wI' is *also* a NOUN suffix, meaning "my", referring to a being capable
of speech.
<bangwI'> means "my one who is loved" or, "my love".
It has nothing to do with the verb suffix -wI'.
Please look these up and see it for yourself!
--tQ
--
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?
--HoD trI'Qal Captain T'rkal ---------------------
tlhwD lIy So' IKV Hidden Comet | [email protected]