Re-defining actions.

Again, I am stumped.

I am trying to re-define the command “break” so it can be used in a solution to a problem, so I used the following–

Understand the command "break" as something new.  Understand "break [something]" as breaking.

It returned a problem message, saying that ‘understand…as…’ must be followed by a meaning…(?).

I had re-defined another verb in the same manner and it did not return this message.


Could it be that since “break” was already in the vocabulary, the second clause was not needed?

Actually I just now realized that I needed to do this–

Understand the command "break" as something new.  Breaking is an action applying to one thing.  Understand "break [something]" as breaking.

It requires an object, perhaps that’s why a problem message was returned…?

You have to say “Breaking is an action…” if you want there to be a breaking action.

Would it make sense to leave “break” as a synonym for ATTACK which is already an action applying to one thing? Write your rules about “Check attacking the valuable document…” which gives you all the attack words a player might use to try and break a thing.

Or, you can still make a new verb if you want, and reroute ATTACK to it which will include “break”. “Instead of attacking something: try schmeerping the noun. Understand “staple [something]” and “wedge [something]” as schmeerping.”