On 7/28/2020 10:34 AM, janSIy . wrote:
I agree that there is significant overlap and that a second word was not really necessary.
Klingon doesn't have words because they're really necessary; it has words because Klingons have a word for something. Languages have redundancies and overlap. This isn't a problem. Why should English have both /shiny/ and /glossy?/ I find a Klingon word for /glossy/ much more useful than a Klingon word for /yodel/ or /protein./
However, being in this situation now, I would say that the difference is the smoothness. Glossy = shiny + smooth. All glossy things are shiny, not all shiny things are glossy.The blade of my katana is shiny, but not glossy. The lacquer on the scabbard is glossy.
I would further suggest that only a coating can be glossy and not an uncoated object, but I haven't fully explored and tested that concept.
Anthracite coal is an example of something glossy but having no coat. Some kinds of silk fabric are glossy without being coated with anything. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name