Translating "dukkha" as "reactivity" Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of Pointing Out the Great Way, says this (emphasis added)...


  The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which
  could also be rendered as “reactivity.” For, as we experience events
  unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the
  ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is
  experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the
  event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In
  Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as
  clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are
  called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark
  every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure
  the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the
  fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism
  defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the
  way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified
  and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated.


My question: Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"? 

Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha.
'Dukkha' means 'suffering', that is, mental torment, i.e., a lack of peace. So "reactivity" is certain a type of dukkha since reactivity is disturbing, tormenting &amp; not peaceful. However, other mental experiences are also "dukkha", such as sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief &amp; despair. Reactivity or mental concocting is one kind of dukkha (called sankhara-dukkha; see SN 38.14; "stressfulness of fabricating") but it is not a translation of the word "dukkha". "Dukkha" means "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".