Yeah, okay, that's a literal translation, but English break the surface has an idiomatic meaning of transitioning between underwater and above water. The Klingon does not carry this idiomatic meaning, so far as anyone knows; it just means there is some kind of surface to something, and he renders it into pieces. To render the English meaning into Klingon, you'd need something like ghor juS ghaH He passes the surface.
This reminds me that I have been wondering something about juS. Does it only have the meaning of 'overtake' or does it also have the other meaning of 'pass' as in 'pass through' something. If it only means 'overtake' then it also could not be used for this situation.
Do we have a Klingon word that we know specifically means something like 'pass through' or 'cross over'? I wonder if in Klingon it might not be more natural to use the verb vegh for passing through an open space because water could be thought of as something in between a solid object like a door and a gas like the air in an open window. I could see how vegh could come to be extended to passing through liquids since they are more permeable than solids making them somewhat like air. Of course, if you fall into water from high enough up, it is like concrete but then in that case you could not vegh or otherwise pass through the surface; instead you would ghor it or it would ghor or maybe liquify you.
Does vegh imply that there has to be a solid area around the place where you pass through--I mean is it exclusively for situations where there is a tunnel/window/door opening that has air/liquid surrounded by a solid? So I guess vegh would not be good? Maybe chIq could work? I still don't understand the exact meaning of juS.
Yes, vegh requires passage through something that completely surrounds you but which you are not immersed in. Marc Okrand was very clear in spelling this out when the word was introduced.
chIq is used to cross from one side of an area to another.
juS seems to refer to two objects that come close to each other then, continuing on roughly the same courses, move father apart again. Both objects do not seem to need to be in motion. But we have less information on juS than we have on the others, and this explanation is mostly supposition on my part.
ghor has never been used canonically or defined outside of TKD, which lists it as surface (of a planet). Since there don't seem to be any other meanings of surface that "of a planet" could be disambiguating, the parenthetical note probably means that ghor means only the surface of a planet, not the surface of any object.
I feel there is more to your question. Perhaps it's just that you forgot that "(of a planet)" was in parentheses and so you imagined it as inseparable. If it's more than just that, please explain what you mean. And whether you had in mind one of these ideas or not, perhaps you (pl) can share your thoughts on the following questions. Do you feel that this sentence misleads learners into thinking that the surface can be applied to any object? Do you think we should accept yor as a translation for "surface" in the reverse exercise?
No one has forgotten anything. Parentheses after a definition serve to disambiguate an English definition that could be interpreted in more than one way. A good example is cha' show, display (picture), where the "(picture)" serves to explain that cha' refers to projecting an image rather than setting an object on a desk or holding an object out in front of you.
In the case of ghor surface (of a planet), there are only two obvious meanings that surface can be referring to: the surface of a planet and the surface of a material. And we're told which one of those it is. If "(of a planet)" wasn't a restrictive part of the definition, it would be completely pointless. What other kind of surface could there be other than surfaces of planets or materials that the parenthetical note could be referring to?
My question was directed at Qov. The wording of her comment seems to imply that we cannot simply say "surface" and must always write it as "surface of a planet". My understanding of the parentheses contradicts that. Thus my question for more detail on whether something was forgotten or whether something more was meant.
The sentence is He breaks the surface. This cannot refer to the surface of a planet, unless you're proposing a being capable of breaking the surface of a planet, which would be a highly misleading sentence to include. One therefore cannot ghor a ghor. That's the objection.