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.