<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/27/2020 11:22 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:13a99ced-f94f-c48d-b50a-49c7366a719c@gmx.de">I just
imagined a pure beginner who looks up the word and memorizes
<br>
{nuH} as "possibility" and then is puzzled with a piece of text
talking
<br>
about weapons and wonders why they speak about possibilities. Or
the
<br>
other way, a beginner might be asking for a good possibility to do
<br>
something and uses the word {nuH}, which might look strange.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>But the beginner <i>should</i> be learning the word <b>nuH</b>
as both <i>weapon</i> and <i>possibility.</i> It means both to a
Klingon. We don't worry about a beginner learning the word <b>jIH</b>
and then wondering why everyone is talking about monitors all the
time. It means both, and to learn the language is to learn when to
use one or the other. Sometimes people do mix those two up. We
correct them, and life goes on.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:13a99ced-f94f-c48d-b50a-49c7366a719c@gmx.de">
Even thought {nuH} is defined as "possibility" in the list, there
still
<br>
is the /regular/ word {DuH}, of which I think it should be
preferred in
<br>
usage wherever possible.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>If <b>nuH</b> can indeed be used outside of the idiom <b>Hoch
nuH qel,</b> then there is no reason to discourage a beginner
from using the word <b>nuH</b> instead of <b>DuH.</b> It
shouldn't look strange, because it's a correct word to use. The
only person it will look strange to is the person who hasn't
learned that the word <b>nuH</b> can be used to mean <i>possibility.</i>
The only time it would matter is when a listener might actually
not be able to distinguish whether a weapon or a possibility is
intended.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:13a99ced-f94f-c48d-b50a-49c7366a719c@gmx.de">
And any external word list should label the metaphorical usage of
{nuH},
<br>
in my opinion.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Possibly. But if the word can be used interchangeably with <b>DuH</b>
to mean <i>possibility,</i> then it doesn't actually matter
whether it's a metaphor or not — it means <i>possibility.</i></p>
<p>Take, for example, the English word <i>hog.</i> It means "a
hoofed mammal of the family Suidae, order Artiodactyla, comprising
boars and swine." But it ALSO means "a selfish, gluttonous, or
filthy person," and this latter definition obviously derives from
the swine meaning. (Its first attestation as a verb in this sense
is in the book <i>Huckleberry Finn</i>). You don't learn that <i>hog</i>
in the selfish, gluttonous, filthy sense is slang or only used in
certain contexts; it's just a word you can use. It doesn't get any
special note in a dictionary. Even though one is a metaphor of the
other, you learn it as its own word that has multiple meanings.<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>