[tlhIngan Hol] New words

[SuStel]

On 7/28/2020 10:34 AM, janSIy . wrote:
> I agree that there is significant overlap and that a second word was 
> not really necessary.

Klingon doesn't have words because they're really necessary; it has 
words because Klingons have a word for something. Languages have 
redundancies and overlap. This isn't a problem. Why should English have 
both /shiny/ and /glossy?/ I find a Klingon word for /glossy/ much more 
useful than a Klingon word for /yodel/ or /protein./


> However, being in this situation now, I would say that the difference 
> is the smoothness. Glossy = shiny + smooth. All glossy things are 
> shiny, not all shiny things are glossy.The blade of my katana is 
> shiny, but not glossy. The lacquer on the scabbard is glossy.
>
> I would further suggest that only a coating can be glossy and not an 
> uncoated object, but I haven't fully explored and tested that concept.

Anthracite coal is an example of something glossy but having no coat. 
Some kinds of silk fabric are glossy without being coated with anything.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200728/5f0dd15f/attachment-0015.htm>