Re: Dictionary formats

Am 31.03.02, Andreas Johansson yscrifef:

> the Tairezazh words _gravun_ and _elkergast_
> refer to quite different state structures, yet both are translated to
> English as "empire"*!
>
> _elkergast_, meaning litterally "emperor-rule-ing", refers basically to
> a centralized hereditary monarchy, while _gravun_, from Vaikin _geraviun_
> "alone-rule" usually refers to shortlived, militarily expansionistic
> empires.
That's more a matter of a problem with using a single English
word to translate the Tairezazh. It's not even really a problem
with your dictionary per se, except that you may be using one
English word to translate one T. word. What you might consider
is, in stead of giving just the one English word, give the whole
definition:

elkergast; lit. "emperor-rule-ing"; a centralized hereditary
monarchy.

gravun; [< _Vaikin_ geraviun]; lit. "alone-rule"; a (usually)
shortlived, militarily empire.

If there are any additional nuances, list them as well.

> In these terms China 's been a _elkergast_ for most of it's
> history, whereas the Mongol Empire was a _gravun_, altho' your average
> Tairezan 'd find it laughable to apply either term to a state not even
> encompassing the whole of a single planet.
Different strokes for different folks. Do they have words for
other government types? It would be interesting to see how they
fit army based but long lived and hereditary governments - or
for that matter, centralised but nonhereditary and nonmonarchical
governments into the system! I guess the US would be elkergast
(even if laughingly ;) )!

Padraic.