>>>If it had enough words, it wouldn't have to reuse them so much. There's no word for "doček" - should be something between "end of waiting for" and "reception", but only as an event, not the stall in a hotel.
>>
>>Don't quite follow this but Reception seems to suffice (French only has "Accueil")
>
>Don't speak French, from what I found that's "acceptance" -

Maybe so but it's what's written above the reception at every camp-site, hotel, etc.

>and no, that's not it. "Doček Nove godine" - "--- of the New year", "doček visokog gosta na aerodromu" - "--- of the high guest at the airport".

Don't get it - you're just using a phrase, like the English translation, with the Docek word thrown in. What's the difference?

>
>>>There are no separate words for "sell" as active and "sell" as passive: if a book sells, what does it sell?
>>
>>Context, my dear fellow, one knows that, as an inanimate object, the book can't sell transitively.
>
>So why is a book a bestseller, just like the author who wrote it?

Because it (intransitively) sells best, just as its author (transitively) sells it the best. Besides, you'd say, "best-selling author".
>
>>>Or, why is there no word for the wooden part of the rifle, so it uses the financial instrument instead?
>>
>>Again, context - one knows a rifle doesn't have financial holdings, or a case of baked beans. Next you'll be saying that the part you press into your shoulder, the butt, could be mistaken for a barrel or someone's arse! :-)
>
>You're actually proving my point. Despite having generally shorter words than my language (I've heard it goes to 4:7), it actually requires more words to express the same things, because you need context to be clear. How about this: "requires more words for same, because her needs context for clarity". That's a sufficient sentence in my language, clear as a window without a glass.

yeah, and, especially after being in Africa and Egypt several times, your expression is perfectly understandable as like "pidgin" English. :-)

>>>not to mention the neutral form for the *lings. We do have quite a set of suffixes for each.
>>
>>Who needs 'em?!
>
>The guy who runs to the camp and wants to report really fast that behind that tree there's a female lion with three little ___ - ambushing a herd of two male monkeys, three female monkeys and seven little ____.

(lol) Ah! - "lioness"! - 3 cubs - herd of monkeys

You'd have time to concern yourself with gender when trying to garble that lot out?! (lol). And especially if the pride were after me, I couldn't give a s**t WHAT gender they are!
>
>>But that's the difference between referring to "iron" (element) or "an iron" (presser, golf-club, cowboy's cuttlery - eating-iron, brander). Again context and you can't go wrong. Tell a cowboy to put the iron in the fire and he'll know you're about to brand, not press his clothes! Your previous "press" example was a nice exercise in puns but contextually unambiguous.
>
>Again... Back then, in message #909132 I was only half kidding. I really couldn't figure out the meaning from the thread title - it didn't become clear until I read the initial message.

Oh, I hadn't realised. :-) Hey, it could have meant "push the plastic explosives into a cranny".

>>On the other hand, we have words like "to wade" (the best French can come up with is, I think, "marcher avec difficulte par d'eau"), obfuscate, words for walking: trudge, mosey, slink, mince, tramp, march, totter (all these without consulting a thesaurus), laugh: titter, guffaw, snigger, chortle, etc.
>
>Don't forget "snort" - I wish my language had a word for that. Though, there's an expression for it: "R backwards", but no verb.

I wish there was a word for the hissing noise that some people make out of their noses when they breath. "Sussuration" is too pleasant a context.