tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 25 01:28:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
}} Compound noun vs N-N construct
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: }} Compound noun vs N-N construct
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 01:28:45 -0400
The interesting point has been made:
>>mu'tlhegh *mu' tlhegh
>>'Iwghargh *'Iw ghargh
>
>These are both arguable, depending on how broad you're going to be with
>"possession" in N-N stuff. They're still both proper compounds, in which
>the first element modifies the second (not the other way 'round or
>something weirder)...
>... It may be that I take my N-N constructions even more
>broadly than most (maybe more broadly than I should), and manage to accept
>"word-string" and "bloodworm" and "transporter-room" as not very different
>from "string of words" and "worm of blood" and "room of the transport
>beam".
I tend to regard compound nouns (no space between them) as a combination of 2
nouns (or much more rarely, perhaps something else with a noun) which have a
meaning that is more than than the 2 nouns in a N1 N2 (or possessive for
those so inclined) construction denotes. Consider:
airport vs air port (a hole which air comes out?)
<'Iwghargh> is a particular type of worm which ?lives in blood, is filled
with blood, tastes like blood, has the color of blood? Having never seen an
'Iwghargh up close and personal, I can't choose one of he preceding over the
other. Whereas if I were to encounter <'Iw ghargh> I would immediately think
of a worm which lives in the bloodstream (somewhat like terrestrial
heartworms). This is just my personal interpretation of compound nouns. If
it helps someone else, then by all means, help yourselves.
gheyIl