Gaav

Doesn't "ofaal" replace this?

@Vilost, this is a word that functions as both an adjective ("available") and a noun ("availability"). There are many words like this.

@Zogrit/Grit, I don't quite remember but I think they make sense to add.

@Aax, it could be effectively replaced by ahraan since ahraan is also a verb.

@Dovahzulaan, fixed.

@Nivzah, changed to nizah.

hiith

Gaav

Doesn't "ofaal" replace this?

Potentially. There are three similar words in the mix right now: canon ofaal "to receive," non-canon gaav "to get," and non-canon rim "to obtain/acquire."

My vote would be to delete rim and further expand the definition of gaav. I think gaav and ofaal are different enough: "to get" and "to obtain" mean to gain something without necessarily receiving it from someone else.

We could also say it's such a minute difference that we should expand the definition of ofaal instead.

A very common issue I come across when reviewing word submissions is in compound words that use either "small" or "large." People always go for the non-canon pus and saak because those are the literal translations listed in the dictionary. I always change the words to use the canon mal and lot instead. Should we remove pus and saak, or should we keep them for the sake of variety, and I could list mal and lot as the primary translations for "small" and "large"? That way people who aren't as familiar with the language will use those in their compound words instead.

paarthurnax

I agree. I feel we need some sort of alternate translations section that justly defines canon words in ways that differ from, but are not to be confused with nor contradictary to, Bethesda's translations. Mal and lot are ideal examples. Kind of like your thesaurus but embedded in the site's dictionary and translator. 

paarthurnax

Potentially. There are three similar words in the mix right now: canon ofaal "to receive," non-canon gaav "to get," and non-canon rim "to obtain/acquire."

My vote would be to delete rim and further expand the definition of gaav. I think gaav and ofaal are different enough: "to get" and "to obtain" mean to gain something without necessarily receiving it from someone else.

We could also say it's such a minute difference that we should expand the definition of ofaal instead.

You raise a good point. I believe that there is enough difference, because of the word "get". If you wanted to say something like "get over here" or "I got embarassed", then the other definitions wouldn't make sense there. So I say that we keep gaav and merge the other two. I believe that if something says "obtain", then "recieve" would also make sense in its stead.

But, in truth, I found it hard to memerise the word gaav because it sounds too much like gave and I was eager to get rid of it.

I understand the confusion. We can certainly change gaav then. Maybe to gaad, giit, giin, or something like that.

Something else to keep in mind is that this word means "to obtain" rather than "to become," which it means in the examples you give ("I got embarrased" vs. "I became embarrassed").

Maybe there's an opportunity here for a new phrase. If you wanted to say "I got angry," you could say zu'u meyz rahgron  "I became angry" or zu'u gaav rahgot "I got anger."

Meyar-Ahraan

Could this also mean 'masochism'?

DovahKiinZaan

Meyar-Ahraan

Could this also mean 'masochism'?

I don't think so. Meyar-Ahraan would mean "to wound yourself," whereas "masochism" is taking pleasure from pain, not necessarily self-inflicted.

Masochism, fair point, but they do cross and Masochists often self-inflict 

DovahKiinZaan

Masochism, fair point, but they do cross and Masochists often self-inflict 

They are related terms, sure, in the same way that "fire" and "pyromaniac" are related.

Agreed, it seems to me that "masochism" refers instead to the enjoyment aroused from the action.

hiith

Agreed, it seems to me that "masochism" refers instead to the enjoyment aroused from the action.

Masochist: Enjoys pain

Sadist: Enjoys pain of others

paarthurnax

Something else to keep in mind is that this word means "to obtain" rather than "to become," which it means in the examples you give ("I got embarrased" vs. "I became embarrassed").

Maybe there's an opportunity here for a new phrase. If you wanted to say "I got angry," you could say zu'u meyz rahgron  "I became angry" or zu'u gaav rahgot "I got anger."

It seems best, to me, to split these definitions between "ofaal" and "meyz" and get rid of "gaav" and "rim"

hiith

paarthurnax

Something else to keep in mind is that this word means "to obtain" rather than "to become," which it means in the examples you give ("I got embarrased" vs. "I became embarrassed").

Maybe there's an opportunity here for a new phrase. If you wanted to say "I got angry," you could say zu'u meyz rahgron  "I became angry" or zu'u gaav rahgot "I got anger."

It seems best, to me, to split these definitions between "ofaal" and "meyz" and get rid of "gaav" and "rim"

I agree, that seems best.