tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 19 17:48:16 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Compound Nouns
- From: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Compound Nouns
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 20:47:50 EDT
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Erich Schneider)
>To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 18:17:09 CDT
>Subject: Re: Compound Words & -ghach
>>>I don't think there are rules for making arbitrary new compound words,
>>>so we have to stick to N-N constructions.
>>Well, they're discussed in TKD 3.2.1, and although Okrand doesn't say that
>>you can't, he also does not imply in the least that you can't. I think
>>most people would argue that you can.
>Who is this "most people"?
>In general, the rule on this mailing list list seems not to have been
>"if Okrand doesn't forbid it, go ahead". It is "if Okrand doesn't say
>it's legit, don't do it". After all, Okrand doesn't say that "-ngang"
>is forbidden as a type 5 noun suffix meaning "with(accompanying)";
>we won't use it, even though it would be nice if we had such a suffix.
>In a similar vein, the "discussion" in 3.2.1 boils down to "there are some
>nouns which are compound nouns". There is no discussion of how to
>produce new compounds, or what exactly new compounds would mean once
>made. Thus, on the list, we avoid doing so.
Okay, so I didn't really take a poll. I said "most people" because I
thought/think TKD 3.2.1 has given us the ability. If you read it, it's
not the same as the -ghach problem; it simply says that compound nouns
consist of two or three nouns in a row, and gives an example. It does
not, in any way, say that there may be nouns that don't work.