<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/29/2020 10:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65a18fb7-baa7-ce2c-a2bc-5284e05e3ea1@gmx.de">Am
29.07.2020 um 14:51 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Why not just leave
it to <i class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>glossy<span
class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i> and <i
class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>shiny<span
class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i> and not try to
<br>
editorialize what words mean?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because I am working on a dictionary that includes information
<br>
explaining words just in case they are ambiguous.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Then explain the difference between the English words, not the
Klingon ones. We don't KNOW that Klingons would find the
difference between <b>chorgh</b> and <b>boch</b> to be the same
difference that I've been describing between <i>glossy</i> and <i>shiny.</i>
We just know a couple of things that have canonically been
described as <b>boch.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:65a18fb7-baa7-ce2c-a2bc-5284e05e3ea1@gmx.de">
> People have access to dictionaries.
<br>
<br>
True, but they don't use them, especially if they believe they
know what
<br>
a word means. Think of {pong} being used to "call" someone on the
phone.
</blockquote>
<p>There's a big difference between declaring one of the given
senses of a word the right one in translation and editorializing
on the meaning of a definition, especially when you admit you're
not clear on that difference. The difference between <i>glossy</i>
and <i>shiny</i> is NOT reducible to <i>glossy</i> being about
texture and <i>shiny</i> being about reflection.<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>