On Oct 26, 2017 11:46 PM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28 September 2017 at 19:06, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
magh indicate, reveal (v)

What do you have as the source of this definition? I am trying to verify this definition.

Anyone? I'm almost convinced that this is an error (or perhaps a trap, since the TKD definition of {magh} is "betray"). My notes claim it's a possible typo, with the source as Star Trek: Communicator. However, the text I have of STC issue #104, which is the only issue I'm aware of where new vocabulary was revealed, does not have this listed.

What is the origin of this definition?

Lieven found the source of this fake word!

There used to be a website called "Star Trek: Continuum" which had a "Klingon Compendium" section, in which someone (not Marc Okrand) had "expanded" the definitions provided by Okrand. See this message here:

https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/1999/May/msg00420.html

The person who did this apparently didn't understand which of the English meanings of "betray" corresponded to {magh}, and so just copied the "indicate, reveal" definition from presumably a thesaurus. The entire "expanded" definition says "Verb, to commit treason. Also to indicate, reveal." This is *not* from Marc Okrand!

At some point, this definition entered the {boQwI'} database with the source abbreviated as "STC". But all the words revealed in Star Trek: Communicator had the source "STC 104", so I noticed it and added a note that the word might've been a typo.

I wonder how many other "expanded" definitions from Star Trek: Continuum have entered into people's databases? The definition {magh} "indicate, reveal" should be removed. (I also think {magh} "betray" doesn't belong on the KLI new words list, since it's already in TKD.)

De'vID