"Sally Manton" wrote:
Look at Blake in Hostage - "she meant a lot to me once" and that only in response to Jenna's direct question (oh, and BTW, he calls Inga 'the
girl'
in this scene rather than use her name. Twice.)
But this is after Inga's name has been established.
What the author is IMO trying to tell us is that Gan and the woman
weren't
married. That *is* the simple explanation, after all ...
Why would the author want to tell us that? And again, where is the evidence that they were talking about Federation marital customs, and where else is there anything to suggest that calling someone "my woman" means they were their common-law partner? And why is it so important to the script to give a subtle hint that Gan wasn't married that the scriptwriter would go to all that trouble? It makes absolutely no sense for that phrase to be trying to establish that Gan and the woman weren't married. No sense at all.
(Not that I'm at all wedded to the concept *that* the simplest
explanation
is the best, you understand :-)
Evidently.
Jenny
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.