My question might be related to English, not Klingon, but how is "be glossy" [new word {chorgh}] different from "be shiny" [old word {boch}]? The request was "have a smooth, silk-like, reflective surface" and I think that a shiny blade, which is {boch} does have such a surface. So what's the point? Was maybe the requester not aware of {boch}? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/NewWordsQepa27
lieven:
My question might be related to English, not Klingon, but how is "be glossy" [new word {chorgh}] different from "be shiny" [old word {boch}]?
The only thing I can think of, is perhaps that shiny could be used for something that shines i.e. emits light, while glossy would be used for something which merely reflects light. But I think perhaps a native english speaker would be better able to answer this. On something totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread, I think that the wiki doesn't have the {valQav} "iris" word. ~ Qa'yIn
On 7/28/2020 8:00 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
My question might be related to English, not Klingon, but how is "be glossy" [new word {chorgh}] different from "be shiny" [old word {boch}]?
The request was "have a smooth, silk-like, reflective surface" and I think that a shiny blade, which is {boch} does have such a surface. So what's the point? Was maybe the requester not aware of {boch}?
https://wikidiff.com/shiny/glossy#:~:text=As%20adjectives%20the%20difference.... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 28.07.2020 um 14:53 schrieb SuStel:
https://wikidiff.com/shiny/glossy#:~:text=As%20adjectives%20the%20difference....
Thanks, that looks useful, but still doesn't help, because there is overlap in meaning. When I read "reflective surface" I think of a blade, which is {boch}. And a glossy surface might still be reflecting light, does it not? That's what the wikipeida article explains as well.... Does maybe "glossy" refer to the surface quality, while "shiny" says what it does? So could I say that a glossy surface is shiny? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com
On 7/28/2020 9:08 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 28.07.2020 um 14:53 schrieb SuStel:
https://wikidiff.com/shiny/glossy#:~:text=As%20adjectives%20the%20difference....
Thanks, that looks useful, but still doesn't help, because there is overlap in meaning.
When I read "reflective surface" I think of a blade, which is {boch}. And a glossy surface might still be reflecting light, does it not? That's what the wikipeida article explains as well....
Does maybe "glossy" refer to the surface quality, while "shiny" says what it does? So could I say that a glossy surface is shiny?
Being shiny is just one quality of a glossy surface. Something glossy is also smooth and silk-like. Not everything that is shiny is smooth and silk-like. A full-color, high-quality magazine is shiny, smooth, and silk-like (hence their informal name, /glossies/). A suit of mail may be shiny, but it is not smooth or silk-like, and so it isn't glossy. The side of a blade will be smooth and shiny, but not silk-like, so it's not glossy -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I agree that there is significant overlap and that a second word was not really necessary. 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. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 8:08:56 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] New words Am 28.07.2020 um 14:53 schrieb SuStel:
https://wikidiff.com/shiny/glossy#:~:text=As%20adjectives%20the%20difference....
Thanks, that looks useful, but still doesn't help, because there is overlap in meaning. When I read "reflective surface" I think of a blade, which is {boch}. And a glossy surface might still be reflecting light, does it not? That's what the wikipeida article explains as well.... Does maybe "glossy" refer to the surface quality, while "shiny" says what it does? So could I say that a glossy surface is shiny? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
And for those who haven't seen them yet: https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-sochdich/new-words/?fbclid...
Am 28.07.2020 um 16:42 schrieb janSIy .:
And for those who haven't seen them yet:
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-sochdich/new-words/?fbclid...
This also works without the Facebook tracking code ;-) https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-sochdich/new-words/ An alternative is the page at the Klingon Language Wiki, which includes links to related topics: http://klingon.wiki/En/NewWordsQepa27 -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com
Thanks! I was doing multiple things at once and hasn't noticed I had included FB tracking. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'! Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:59:30 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] New words Am 28.07.2020 um 16:42 schrieb janSIy .:
And for those who haven't seen them yet:
https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-sochdich/new-words/?fbclid...
This also works without the Facebook tracking code ;-) https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-sochdich/new-words/ An alternative is the page at the Klingon Language Wiki, which includes links to related topics: http://klingon.wiki/En/NewWordsQepa27 -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
I don't think I would have described anthracite coal as glossy, but OK. What if I say it like, "having a smooth and shiny coating or looking like it has a smooth and shiny coating"? On 7/28/2020 10:34 AM, janSIy . wrote: 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
On 7/28/2020 11:01 AM, janSIy . wrote:
I don't think I would have described anthracite coal as glossy, but OK. What if I say it like, "having a smooth and shiny coating or looking like it has a smooth and shiny coating"?
I don't think the perception of a coating really has anything to do with it. One can have glossy lipstick, and when it's put on the lips one can say the lips are glossy because they're coated with the lipstick, but the lipstick is glossy whether it's on the lips or not. Glossy silk isn't coating anything. Even if you wear it as a literal coat, nobody would say you look glossy in that coat; they would say your coat is glossy. There are some plastics that are glossy all the way through, not just on the outside. When you cut into them, the new surfaces are also glossy. It's just that gloss is measured from the reflected light of a surface. Coating or the perception of coating isn't what's relevant; reflectivity and smoothness matter. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’d be interested in the general reaction to what I would expect the difference between glossy and shiny might be: Glossy surfaces have diffuse reflection. Shiny things have direct reflection. You can see an image in a shiny surface (though you may need to magnify the surface to see that image, as in the afore-mentioned chain mail). You can’t generally see distinct images on any scale in glossy surfaces. So, shiny things tend to be silvery, while glossy things tend to have colors other than silver. Is this useful or misguided? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:34 AM, janSIy . <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
I agree that there is significant overlap and that a second word was not really necessary.
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.
Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 8:08:56 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] New words
Am 28.07.2020 um 14:53 schrieb SuStel:
https://wikidiff.com/shiny/glossy#:~:text=As%20adjectives%20the%20difference... <https://wikidiff.com/shiny/glossy#:~:text=As%20adjectives%20the%20difference%20between,smooth%2C%20silklike%2C%20reflective%20surface>.
Thanks, that looks useful, but still doesn't help, because there is overlap in meaning.
When I read "reflective surface" I think of a blade, which is {boch}. And a glossy surface might still be reflecting light, does it not? That's what the wikipeida article explains as well....
Does maybe "glossy" refer to the surface quality, while "shiny" says what it does? So could I say that a glossy surface is shiny? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com <http://www.tlhinganhol.com/>
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org> _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 28.07.2020 um 17:27 schrieb Will Martin:
You can see an image in a shiny surface (though you may need to magnify the surface to see that image, as in the afore-mentioned chain mail). You can’t generally see distinct images on any scale in glossy surfaces.
This is so far the most understandable difference I've seen so far -- assuming it is correct. But still it would contradict the usage of {boch} for a "shiny nose", because I doubt that a nose is able to refelect an image and I would think that a shiny nose, i.e. if coated with suntan lotion for instance, would be considered "glossy", but not shiny. :-/ -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Boch
On 7/28/2020 11:50 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 28.07.2020 um 17:27 schrieb Will Martin:
You can see an image in a shiny surface (though you may need to magnify the surface to see that image, as in the afore-mentioned chain mail). You can’t generally see distinct images on any scale in glossy surfaces.
This is so far the most understandable difference I've seen so far -- assuming it is correct.
It's not correct. /Shiny/ refers to being bright with reflected light, but that light doesn't have to form an image. Here's an example of a shiny rock in which you can see no image: https://live.staticflickr.com/30/47205584_b702fca504.jpg Meanwhile, it can be possible to see images in glossy surfaces, but it's not required. Here's an example of a glossy bowl in which you can clearly see a reflection, but /shiny/ would definitely not be the first word I reached for to describe the bowl: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/bf/cd/cebfcd2baad882943314fcc8494c9def.jpg And here's an example of an obsidian ball which clearly shows reflections, but which I certainly wouldn't call shiny: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/4e/2c/b54e2ca6d37de723ccecafe1cfc78a73.jpg<https://shop.atperrys.com/products/black-obsidian-healing-gemstone?variant=12245883879486&dfw_tracker=53408-12245883879486&gclid=CjwKCAjwmf_4BRABEiwAGhDfSe9znPbD_y1GQUFOrIfgaFW01c4na4iGOXC-iA-Mc2Ugy0XHXHbpsBoCWSsQAvD_BwE> -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 28.07.2020 um 18:05 schrieb SuStel:
/Shiny/ refers to being bright with reflected light, but that light doesn't have to form an image. Here's an example of a shiny rock in which you can see no image:
And I assume that rock is not considered glossy, because it's not smooth?
not required. Here's an example of a glossy bowl in which you can clearly see a reflection, but /shiny/ would definitely not be the first word I reached for to describe the bowl:
Hm. Difficult. I would have said it's shiny, but I'm not a native English speaker...
And here's an example of an obsidian ball which clearly shows reflections, but which I certainly wouldn't call shiny:
From your explanations, it seems to me that shiny always includes some brightness, right? The surface of a desert might be shiny because crystals reflect the sun somehow, but it's certainly not smooth, no glossy, right? Still, there is a lot of overlap... -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine
On 7/28/2020 12:38 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 28.07.2020 um 18:05 schrieb SuStel:
/Shiny/ refers to being bright with reflected light, but that light doesn't have to form an image. Here's an example of a shiny rock in which you can see no image:
And I assume that rock is not considered glossy, because it's not smooth?
Right.
not required. Here's an example of a glossy bowl in which you can clearly see a reflection, but /shiny/ would definitely not be the first word I reached for to describe the bowl:
Hm. Difficult. I would have said it's shiny, but I'm not a native English speaker...
As I said, it's not the first word I would reach for. If someone called it shiny, I wouldn't say "No it's not." It has a certain amount of shine to it, but that quality is not predominant.
And here's an example of an obsidian ball which clearly shows reflections, but which I certainly wouldn't call shiny:
From your explanations, it seems to me that shiny always includes some brightness, right? The surface of a desert might be shiny because crystals reflect the sun somehow, but it's certainly not smooth, no glossy, right?
You've got it.
Still, there is a lot of overlap...
Yes. Because being glossy and being shiny share the characteristic of reflecting light. The two words are not mutually exclusive. Some things that are glossy are also shiny, and some things that are shiny are also glossy. Some things can reflect light and still not be called shiny because their shine isn't bright. I would not, for instance, call a bathroom mirror shiny under most circumstances because it does not seem bright due to reflected light. All I see is a reflected image. But if I were looking at the mirror nearly edge-on and the ambient sunlight were reflecting off it, I might call it shiny. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:38 PM Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Still, there is a lot of overlap...
Well, it wouldn't be Klingon's first set of synonyms or near-synonyms. (Personally, I think it was a missed comedic opportunity that we only got one word for "be repetitive/redundant".)
The examples that you cite seem to suggest the difference has to do with color. If something is “silvery”, you call it “shiny”, but if it has rich hues of its own, you call it “glossy”. So, what would you call silver lamé? Gold lamé? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:05 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/28/2020 11:50 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 28.07.2020 um 17:27 schrieb Will Martin:
You can see an image in a shiny surface (though you may need to magnify the surface to see that image, as in the afore-mentioned chain mail). You can’t generally see distinct images on any scale in glossy surfaces.
This is so far the most understandable difference I've seen so far -- assuming it is correct. It's not correct. Shiny refers to being bright with reflected light, but that light doesn't have to form an image. Here's an example of a shiny rock in which you can see no image: https://live.staticflickr.com/30/47205584_b702fca504.jpg <https://live.staticflickr.com/30/47205584_b702fca504.jpg> Meanwhile, it can be possible to see images in glossy surfaces, but it's not required. Here's an example of a glossy bowl in which you can clearly see a reflection, but shiny would definitely not be the first word I reached for to describe the bowl: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/bf/cd/cebfcd2baad882943314fcc8494c9def.jpg <https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/bf/cd/cebfcd2baad882943314fcc8494c9def.jpg> And here's an example of an obsidian ball which clearly shows reflections, but which I certainly wouldn't call shiny: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/4e/2c/b54e2ca6d37de723ccecafe1cfc78a73.jpg <https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/4e/2c/b54e2ca6d37de723ccecafe1cfc78a73.jpg> <https://shop.atperrys.com/products/black-obsidian-healing-gemstone?variant=12245883879486&dfw_tracker=53408-12245883879486&gclid=CjwKCAjwmf_4BRABEiwAGhDfSe9znPbD_y1GQUFOrIfgaFW01c4na4iGOXC-iA-Mc2Ugy0XHXHbpsBoCWSsQAvD_BwE> -- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/28/2020 2:34 PM, Will Martin wrote:
The examples that you cite seem to suggest the difference has to do with color.
If something is “silvery”, you call it “shiny”, but if it has rich hues of its own, you call it “glossy”.
Nope. Here's a black and white picture of some sunlight on water. It is shiny and not glossy. There is only one hue in the picture, which isn't silver, with various shades of that hue. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRMuSx_A2l7MPR1ej6ogK... Here's a picture of a black jacket that is both shiny and glossy. It too has only one hue, which isn't silver, with various shades of that hue. https://dtpmhvbsmffsz.cloudfront.net/posts/2017/09/23/59c6ecedc6c79515460039...
So, what would you call silver lamé?
Gold lamé?
Depends on the quality and style of the fabric. If it looks smooth and silky (https://www.rebelparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/GOLD-LAME2.jpg), it's glossy; if it looks rougher (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRF55Slk7gDtpsBl0hQ2lUL...), it's not. If it reflects a lot of light, it's shiny; if it doesn't, it's not. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
When I first saw "glossy" I thought of a texture. Shiny doesn't have a feel. ~Melanie Roney Sent from my Palm Prē
Would it be okay to write the following inthe Wiki? It seems that {chorgh} /be glossy/ refers to texture while {boch}} /be shiny/ refers to how light is being reflected. There is an overlap in meanings, because glossy things can be shiny, but not everything that is shiny has to be glossy. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Chorgh
On 7/29/2020 3:04 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Would it be okay to write the following inthe Wiki?
It seems that {chorgh} /be glossy/ refers to texture while {boch}} /be shiny/ refers to how light is being reflected. There is an overlap in meanings, because glossy things can be shiny, but not everything that is shiny has to be glossy.
Why not just leave it to /glossy/ and /shiny/ and not try to editorialize what words mean? People have access to dictionaries. All this talk is not about the difference between the Klingon words *chorgh* and *boch,* but about the difference between the English words /glossy/ and /shiny./ Whether these words translate absolutely exactly is unknown. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 29.07.2020 um 14:51 schrieb SuStel:
Why not just leave it to /glossy/ and /shiny/ and not try to editorialize what words mean?
Because I am working on a dictionary that includes information explaining words just in case they are ambiguous.
People have access to dictionaries.
True, but they don't use them, especially if they believe they know what a word means. Think of {pong} being used to "call" someone on the phone.
All this talk is not about the difference between the Klingon words *chorgh* and *boch,* but about the difference between the English words /glossy/ and /shiny./ Whether these words translate absolutely exactly is unknown.
That is true. But I am also working on German dictionaries; And you know what? In German, there is one single word for both "glossy" and "shiny". That's why I started this discussion. And then Google translate explains "glossy" as "shiny and smooth". Webster tells me that glossy means "having a shiny surface" while shiny is explained as "bright or glossy in appearance". The overlap is huge, diffcult and confusing. (After all, I wonder why this word was requested or accepted to be requested, because I think that {boch} would have worked for this concept. But that's another topic.) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Chorgh
On 7/29/2020 10:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 29.07.2020 um 14:51 schrieb SuStel:
Why not just leave it to /glossy/ and /shiny/ and not try to editorialize what words mean?
Because I am working on a dictionary that includes information explaining words just in case they are ambiguous.
Then explain the difference between the English words, not the Klingon ones. We don't KNOW that Klingons would find the difference between *chorgh* and *boch* to be the same difference that I've been describing between /glossy/ and /shiny./ We just know a couple of things that have canonically been described as *boch.*
People have access to dictionaries.
True, but they don't use them, especially if they believe they know what a word means. Think of {pong} being used to "call" someone on the phone.
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 /glossy/ and /shiny/ is NOT reducible to /glossy/ being about texture and /shiny/ being about reflection. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jul 29, 2020, at 10:49 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The difference between glossy and shiny is NOT reducible to glossy being about texture and shiny being about reflection.
I largely agree. Reducing them to those ideas is not appropriare. However, I cannot deny that if there were two bright and equally reflective objects, one smooth and the other not, I would call only the smooth one “glossy”. Similarly, with two reflective and equally smooth objects, one bright and the other not, I would call only the bright one “shiny”. For me, the difference in meaning involves texture vs. brightness. They both certainly share other attributes. -- ghunchu'wI'
Am 29.07.2020 um 16:49 schrieb SuStel:
Then explain the difference between the English words, not the Klingon ones.
Okay, that's a good point. I'll change it that way.
difference. The difference between /glossy/ and /shiny/ is NOT reducible to /glossy/ being about texture and /shiny/ being about reflection.
Okay. Thanks. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/Boch
Thank you for pointing this out. I wanted to say this, but didn’t want to cause any angst or stress over something that, truth be told, I’m not that invested in. As they say in the South, {targh may'vamDaq, targh vIHutlh.} charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 29, 2020, at 8:51 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/29/2020 3:04 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Would it be okay to write the following inthe Wiki?
It seems that {chorgh} /be glossy/ refers to texture while {boch}} /be shiny/ refers to how light is being reflected. There is an overlap in meanings, because glossy things can be shiny, but not everything that is shiny has to be glossy. Why not just leave it to glossy and shiny and not try to editorialize what words mean? People have access to dictionaries.
All this talk is not about the difference between the Klingon words chorgh and boch, but about the difference between the English words glossy and shiny. Whether these words translate absolutely exactly is unknown.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 14:00, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
My question might be related to English, not Klingon, but how is "be glossy" [new word {chorgh}] different from "be shiny" [old word {boch}]?
The request was "have a smooth, silk-like, reflective surface" and I think that a shiny blade, which is {boch} does have such a surface. So what's the point? Was maybe the requester not aware of {boch}?
If it's any help, Marc Okrand was probably thinking of eight ({chorgh}) inch photo paper when Maltz told him this word. Photo paper is glossy, but not (typically) shiny. -- De'vID
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:42 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
If it's any help, Marc Okrand was probably thinking of eight ({chorgh}) inch photo paper when Maltz told him this word.
I immediately thought of Alice's Restaurant. https://i.pinimg.com/564x/5f/a0/16/5fa01673a4dfe4150a6c1225d987f0be.jpg -- ghunchu'wI'
On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 19:06:09 BST Alan Anderson wrote:
I immediately thought of Alice's Restaurant. https://i.pinimg.com/564x/5f/a0/16/5fa01673a4dfe4150a6c1225d987f0be.jpg
Me too, now the song I've just done's mostly complete (scratch Down Under from the list), I was thinking about adding Alice's Restaurant.
participants (10)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
janSIy . -
Jeremy Silver -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Melanie Roney -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin