<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/26/2016 3:09 PM, Alan Anderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFK8js3Kxuf4adWXuPPJW=0xmAEKJVz5ZPcTRJSULp7FsbBAsg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The Klingon Dictionary defines {chIp} as "cut, trim" and puts (hair)
in parentheses. I choose to interpret that as meaning "hair" is an
appropriate object of the verb, and it is probably the default if one
is not explicitly given, but it is not the only correct object.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I, however, believe it means only cutting hair. When words are
put in parentheses, it means Okrand is disambiguating definitions
for us, not giving us sample objects because he feels like it. <b>baH</b>
is <i>fire (torpedo, rocket, missile)</i> to distinguish it from
meanings like <i>fire (employee)</i><i>.</i><b> QIq</b> is <i>draw,
pull out (weapon, tool, instrument)</i> to keep us from thinking
it means <i>draw (as on paper)</i> or <i>pull out (military
forces). </i>He is even obviously not specifying an object in
the parentheses in a word like <b>Dan</b> <i>occupy (military
term).</i><i> </i><b>chIp</b> <i>cut, trim (hair)</i> is doing
the same thing, telling us that this refers to hair-cutting and
not other kinds of cutting or trimming.<br>
</p>
If this weren't the case, he wouldn't give us parentheses only for
the words that can be ambiguous in English. He doesn't give us, for
instance, <b>bav</b> <i>orbit (planet, nucleus),</i> or <b>ghup</b>
<i>swallow (down throat)</i> because these English definitions are
already unambiguous.<b><i> </i></b><br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>