- Kosst Amojan Seams to me that it refers to ANY Pah-wraith, and is simply an anachronistic term. It also seams that the term is both singular and plural (like sheep), and can refer to an individual as a proper name. It may be like referring to an Egyptian king as Pharaoh, a term which literally means Palace or House of the King, depending on who's translating. But I find the idea that Kosst Amojan is an individual a stretch, and should be reconsidered. --6/6 Neural Transceiver 09:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just reviving the topicEdit
Its been nearly a year since this was discussed. Does anyone have any insight into this issue? I'd always taken Kosst Amojan to be a singular person... but that seems to be disputed by several episodes. Logic, and proper episode transcripts should be able to pin this down one way or the other, no? If the name ever refers to multiple entities, its impossible to be singular, and thats eliminated. If its ever used as a qualifier for the phrase "Pah Wraiths", it would seem to be a sect, or subtype. We should be able to work this out. Hossrex 01:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've just watched "The Reckoning", and that definitely implies that Kosst Amojan is a singular being - he/it is simply an individual Pah-wraith, but I know that this is complicated when the Book of Kosst Amojan gets introduced in season 7. When I get to view those later episodes (which won't be that long, maybe a month or so), I'll try to clear this confusion up if I can, and sort out the article – Bertaut talk 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right then, having just watched "Tears of the Prophets", "Image in the Sand" and "Shadows and Symbols", I can confirm that the BG section on this page is wrong. Sarah uses the singular when talking about Kosst Amojan, not the plural, which ties in with what Kai Winn says in "The Reckoning", that Kosst Amojan is an individual Pah-wraith. Here's what Sarah says:
- "The Kosst Amojan no longer threatens us. All has been restored."
- "Threatens us", not "threaten us"; if the Kosst Amojan was more than one, it would be "threaten us." Sisko then says: "You mean the Pah-wraith? It's no longer in the wormhole?" (still singular) to which Sarah says "I have cast it out." (still singular)
- I won't make any edits to the page until I get to final arc, but as it stands now, the BG section is wrong in claiming that "Shadows and Symbols" contradicts "The Reckoning". – Bertaut talk 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless it refers to a "host". As in... "The group no longer threatens us." -- Sulfur 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've found some more evidence of the argument for a singular entity in the episode "Covenant". Here's what Dukat says when discussing the events of "Tears of the Prophets":
- "Oh, I admit, when I allowed myself to become a vessel for the Pah-wraith, I did it for self-serving reasons. I wanted to help it enter the wormhole so it could force the Prophets out. It was nothing more than a way to exact vengeance on Sisko. But I had no idea the effect it would have on me. It was only inside me for a short time, but it opened my heart."
- I think this confirms that Kosst Amojan is definitely a singular entity. As for your suggestion Sulfur, it's possible, but I think what Dukat says here suggests otherwise – Bertaut talk 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right. I've finished watching the 9-episode arc, and basically, I can find no evidence or suggestion anywhere that Kosst Amojan is anything but a singular entity. In "The Reckoning" it's the wraith who possesses Jake; in "Tears of the Prophets", it possesses Dukat; in "Image in the Sand", it's expelled from the wormhole and Sarah several times refers to it in the singular; in "Covenant", Dukat also several times refers to it as a singular individual; and in "What You Leave Behind", both Dukat and Winn refer to it in the singular. So there's no ambiguity or contradiction (at least as far as I can tell). It seems fairly clear - Kosst Amojan is a Pah-wraith. So, I'll rewrite the article accordingly as soon as I get a chance. Unless of course anyone can find anything compelling to suggest that there is in fact a degree of ambiguity. – Bertaut talk 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I never thought "Kosst Amojan" referred to any single PahWraith, but to the PahWraiths collectively. Firstly, it doesn't make sense: ONE pahwraith has a name, and all the others don't? Secondly, a specific pahwraith posessed Jake, and the same exact one posessed Dukat, but then, later, that same one had to be freed from the Fire Caves where it had been imprisoned for millenia? It doesn't make sense that all three would be the same pahwraith. OK, those are the things that contradict the notion that Kosst Amojan is a single individual. Now to argue that the converse is consistent: I always thought that "Kosst Amojan" refers to the community or the collective of the pahwraiths. As such, it CAN be talked about in the singular. Hossrex above didn't consider cases like how "District Court" does not refer to any single judge, nevertheless one judge's ruling is attributed to The Court. Or how "the spaghetti" doesn't refer to any single piece of spaghetti, but if there's one piece on your shirt, you want to get "the spaghetti" off it. A pahwraith is one of the Kosst Amojan. So when people say "Kosst Amojan" or "the Kosst Amojan" they could be talking about one individual pahwraith just as well as they could be talking about the collective. It depends on the context, just like the other examples I gave. When you watch with this in mind, there's no line of dialog that is contradictory or ambiguous. SwishyGarak 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You raise a couple of interesting points, but I think the fundamental issue is this: all the dialogue gives the impression that Kosst Amojan is one indiviudal. If the writers intended the Kosst Amojan to simply be another name for the Pah-wraiths, wouldn't they have said so? It would seem strange that they would have used two names for the wraiths, given the impression that one of those names referred to only one wraith and never actually explainined what they were doing. Seems a bit unnecessairly convoluted. And to use your own logic - why would the Pah-wraiths have two names and the Prophets only one? And why then does Winn and Dukat continually refer to the name 'Pah-wraiths', until they get to the cave and say 'Come to me, Kosst Amojan'? You're right in what you say, it could be referring to multiple entities, grammatically, there's nothing to tell us one way or the other for certain, but my argument is that there are numerous implications throughout the episodes that Kosst Amojan is one individual, whilst to suggest that Kosst Amjoan and the Pah-wraiths are one in and the same is reading somewhat between the lines. As to your argument about the implausibility of the same individual being in all the episodes. I see no problem with it personally. The idea in "What You Leave Behind" is that the Pah-wraiths as a group have been imprisoned for thousands of years, but we know that from both "The Assignment" and "The Reckoning", some have gotten out from time to time. But I don't know, this is becoming a more subjective debate than I anticipated, and we could end up being here until doomsday if we start getting into the semantics of this sentance and that sentance (something which I freely admit I started). What do other people think? – Bertaut talk 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Kosst Amojan/Pah-wraith (again) Edit
- I read this change when it was made by the author and decided that I'd have to watch the episodes again to confirm them since it sounds more like this information came from a book and not the episodes. From what I remember of the show Kosst Amojan was a single Pah Wraith (leader of the pah wraith maybe though that was never specified) — Morder 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Pah-wraith" and "Kosst Amojan" don't mean the same thing. Pahwraith is like a normal generic noun, and Kosst Amojan is a proper noun. Kosst Amojan is either the proper name for one specific pahwraith, or it's the proper name for a certain group of pahwraiths, or it's the proper name for any/all pahwraiths collectively. Not clear which. The only reason the article currently is written the way it is, is that the above never got resolved. Different people think different things. In such a state, a merge could be construed as a POV action, since the majority above favor the "individual pahwraith" angle. Personally, I find SwishyGarak's argument very very persuasive: The Kosst Amojan(s) which possessed Jake and Dukat obviously wasn't/weren't the Kosst Amojan which got freed from the Fire Caves. To extend Swishy's example, merging would be like merging "District Court" into "Judge(s)". --TribbleFurSuit 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also find SwishyGarak's argument very convincing. It would be implausible for a specific individual Pah Wraith to be freed from an artifact to battle a Prophet, then to be freed again from another artifact and then to be freed from the Fire Caves where he was all along. Clearly they are separate individuals. But to classify all Pah Wraiths as "the Kosst Amojan" does seem grammatically uncomfortable. Could this "Kosst Amojan" be a title for certain Pah Wraiths with a particular mission or position? Each "Kosst Amojan" seemed to be destined to be freed before the rest of the Pah Wraiths and each seemed to have a mission to assault the Celestial Temple in preparation for the Pah Wraiths' return. - – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
Answer to Kosst Amojan:
Koss'moran is a Bajoran legend that tells of false Prophets, the Pah-wraiths, who were cast out of the Bajoran celestial temple. The Bajoran word Koss'moran comes from the verb kosst that means "to be," and amoran, which means "banished." (DS9: "The Assignment")
According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, Koss'moran is actually the same thing as Kosst Amojan - they both mean "to be banished". The phrase Kosst Amojan would appear in the episode "The Reckoning", but it would not be revealed as meaning anything specific. Although most fans seem to assume that Koss'moran and Kosst Amojan are actually two different concepts, according to the Companion, they represent the exact same idea. René Echevarria simply altered the name because he didn't like the sound of Koss'moran.
- It appears that 184.108.40.206 simply copy-pasted the contents of the Koss'moran article. I think s/he believed the pages should be merged, since they were intended to be the same concept.
- I can verify that the statement from the Companion is accurate (pp. 389-390). It goes so far to say that Echevarria actually talked to Ira Behr about it, and got him to approve the new name (because when Rom stressed "moron" it sounded a bit silly). The DS9 writers seem to be notorious for coming up with synonyms for things (Who runs Bajor? The Chamber of Ministers/Council of Ministers/Board of Ministers/Bajoran Council apparently). Might be worth a merge then. This doesn't help the larger issue above about what the Kosst Amojan is though.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:20, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Two additional points:
- The bit about "most fans" is not from the book and should not be included.
- Before anyone suggests it, I don't think that the Koss'moran article as written is strictly accurate. I think when Rom calls "Koss'moran" a "legend", it doesn't mean that that's the formal name of the legend. I think he's saying it like someone might refer to "Elves" as a legend. Given the ambiguous wording, we should probably favour an interpretation that matches with the writer's intentions. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:32, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
If Kosst Amojan is a single being then how could he be imprisoned in two different artifacts, one of which was broken in The Reckoning and the other broken in Tears of the Prophets? Seems to me that it's just another word for Pah-wraith. NetSpiker (talk) 04:02, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
Book, legend or what? Edit
I don't have access to the DS9 disks currently, but does anyone remember (or can anyone check) if the koss'moran was a book, a legend, or what? -- Renegade54 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is the name of the legend. --Bp 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Renegade54 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Noting "the Sisko" Edit
I think it should be noted that the Prophet refer to Sisko as "the Sisko" so even when it is preceded by the word the that alone does not make it plural. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).