tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 07 05:39:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: *boHem*ngan bomnong
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: *boHem*ngan bomnong
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 17:20:46 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Bill Willmerdinger\" at Jul 5, 94 8:35 pm
According to Bill Willmerdinger\:
>
...
> Uu> given only as a verb, and verb-noun compounds are not extremely
> Uu> well-attested, and we're not sure you can freely do that. Just be
> Uu> aware...
>
> I realized that. I got e-mail from Amy West suggesting "bom nong", but I was
> trying for a complex noun. After examining TKD, I found some complex nouns
> that have verb elements, and the verb is always second, so perhaps "bomnong"
> is more "appropriate".
Umm, you didn't seem to hear what your grammarian was telling
you. "verb-noun compounds are not extremely well-attested...".
He wasn't just saying that reversing the order would make it
okay. You can't use a verb at all in constructing a complex
noun.
Unless your name is Marc Okrand.
That is the point here. The RULE is that compound nouns are
constructed exclusively of nouns. Okrand can make exceptions
whenever he likes because it is his language. He came up with
well over a thousand words for this vocabulary, invented the
grammar and the sounds that make up the language. He promoted
it, got it published and more. He has earned the right to make
up any word he likes.
You haven't done ANY of that, and you DON'T have the right to
make up new words. If we all had individual rights to do that,
then the language would soon be out of control and impossible
to understand, except within individual dialects among those
who agreed on limiting themselves to a common vocabulary.
Now, if someone could explain that to Proechel...
charghwIg'