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/.

We can't take either position with certainty.

Okrand defined magh as betray. But he used magh in place of act against in one translation, without comment. Does that mean magh means all the things both betray and act against mean? We don't know. But odds are good that if you want to translate act against, you might find that magh is a good fit, regardless of whether that's actually an exact translation.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name