tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 10 12:14:49 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Compound Nouns and N1-N2 (again)
Alan Anderson wrote:
> TKD 3.4 says a "legitimate compound noun" would be found in a dictionary.
Not quite what it says. The exact quote, _in context_, is:
"In addition, it is possible to combine nouns in the manner of a compount
noun to produce a new construct even if it is not a legitimate compound
noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be found in a dictionary)."
"...found in *a* dictionary" not *this specific* dictionary. Granted it is
the only dictionary we have but I interpret this as a generic definition
of "legitimate", not a specific ban on using compound noun that aren't found
in *this specific* dictionary.
Furthermore he says "it is possible" to form this new construct "*even* if it
is *not*" legitimate. Possible for whom? Okrand only? Anyone? If it were
possible for Okrand only then why would he bother letting us know what 'God'
only can do? Does he imply that if we form such constructs and use them often
enough then they will "have become everday words". I read that to mean if we
form a word for an object and use it commonly amoungst ourselves then it
becomes "legitimate".
> I hope we all agree that adding words to the dictionary is not permitted
> without true canon support (basically, only Okrand can do it). We can't
> make a "legitimate compound noun" ourselves; all we can do is follow the
> noun-noun pattern to make a possessive construction.
Well this is why I was asking about the difference between a word for something
and a 'name' for something. I sure agree that, at this moment in time, we
shouldn't make up words. (Whose to say at what point KLI will or should become
the source for language 'canon'.) What I'd like to know is were is the
dividing line. Some of the suggestions for 'battle ax' seem to have crossed the
line.
Qapla'
QetaH