lieven:
Anyway, I would stick to the first definition magh = "betray
I agree. I think, that it would be very difficult/close to impossible for someone reading {magh} to actually think "work against", instead {betray}. Sticking to the strictest interpretation of canon, is the only way to assure, that while using the language, we are able to actually understand each other. qunnoq On 14 Aug 2017 10:08 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 14.08.2017 um 20:58 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
So, with regards to the "act against" translation of {magh}, we can't be certain that it's 100% 'oqranD-approved, right ?
If you take it very exact, than yes.
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.
It's like many people like to use the word {targh} for "dog". It's not correct, but conveys the idea.
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 /anyone/.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org