<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/14/2017 3:08 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:635c175f-c227-cb3e-2f08-0c519dc284b8@gmx.de">Am
14.08.2017 um 20:58 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">So, with regards
to the "act against" translation of {magh}, we can't be certain
that it's 100% 'oqranD-approved, right ?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you take it very exact, than yes.
<br>
<br>
It seems obvious that the English was there first. When okrand had
to tanslate it, he searched for a suitable word. Since there was
no word meaning "act against", he probably thought like "that's
quite the same as betraying someone", so he picked that word
instead. It didn't really change the meaning of the phrase.
<br>
<br>
It's like many people like to use the word {targh} for "dog". It's
not correct, but conveys the idea.
<br>
<br>
Anyway, I would stick to the first definition magh = "betray" and
regard the other translation as a clue on how one could use the
word. After all, working against somebody that you are supposed to
help is betraying. But {magh} is not work against <i
class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>anyone<span
class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i>.
</blockquote>
<p>We can't take either position with certainty.</p>
<p>Okrand defined <b>magh</b> as <i>betray.</i> But he used <b>magh</b>
in place of <i>act against</i> in one translation, without
comment. Does that mean <b>magh</b> means all the things both <i>betray</i>
and <i>act against</i> mean? We don't know. But odds are good
that if you want to translate <i>act against,</i> you might find
that <b>magh</b> is a good fit, regardless of whether that's
actually an exact translation.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>