tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 10 12:25:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Compound Nouns and N1-N2 (again)
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
> First, I'll interpret anything in TKD the way TKD says to interpret it.
> If TKD says that {mangghom} is "army", I will not insist that it really
> means "soldier's group" (though I don't see that much of a distinction
> in this case). {'Iwghargh} "bloodworm" doesn't necessarily have to mean
> "blood's worm" either. These "legitimate" compound nouns ARE found in
> the dictionary, and DO have specifically defined meanings, so I don't
> need to look further in order to interpret them. So I do *not* intend
> to force the possessive interpretation on "legitimate compound nouns."
You know that wasn't my point. You claim noun-noun and compound noun are
the same. I am simply saying that if you want to maintain this claim,
then you must accept these readings. I am not suggesting these readings
are correct; in fact, I don't want them to be correct. I believe they
are wrong, because they are compounds, not noun-nouns.
> My main point is that I don't think *WE* can create a compound noun with
> a meaning of anything except "N2 of the N1".
Here you say that we can create a compound and intepret it as a noun-noun.
And I see nothing telling us that a compound can be interpreted this
way. I see something telling us that noun-noun can be interpreted this
way. It's in the section of the dictionary labelled "The noun-noun
construction."
> Whether TKD 3.4 is talking
> about compound nouns or not, [...]
Since TKD 3.4 is labelled "The noun-noun construction", I'll wager that
he's talking about noun-nouns. If he'd been talking about compounds, I
think it'd have been in TKD 3.2.1, which is labelled "Compound nouns".
> it's the only place I see that tells us HOW
> to put nouns together. It tells us how to translate the results of that
> process, and it tells us to translate it as possessive.
It also only gives examples of true possession, but canon indicates that
the interpretation extends beyond possession, with examples like /telun
Hovtay'/. Are you now only interpreting noun-noun as possessive, since
this is all that's described in 3.4?
> It specifically
> does NOT tell us how to make compound nouns. (Neither does TKD 3.2.1.)
Yes, it does. It just doesn't tell us how to interpret them. (See below).
> I do recognize the difference between a "wordgroup" and a "word's group",
> and I accept that {mu'ghom} is a compound that does not have a possessive
> meaning. But just as we do not have instructions for turning a noun into
> an adverb, I don't find any instructions for making a compound noun. All
> I see is a way to combine nouns "in the manner of a compound noun" to get
> a noun-noun construction with a possessive translation.
TKD 3.2.1: "Compound nouns consist of two or three nouns in a row."
>From the examples, we see that these form single words, with no spaces.
Is your objection that Okrand does not say something like "you may select
two nouns from the dictionary, put them together into a single word, thus
forming a compound noun?" If so, then you will find no similar
instructions for any other type of grammatical construction in the
dictionary. What is missing here is a description of how to interpret
the construction. That's nothing new, in much of TKD he's extremely
sketchy and vague with his descriptions.
> I simply do not see the ability to create compound nouns given in TKD.
> Perhaps the creation of new compound nouns is a "warranted" extension,
> but I still think it's an extension.
Nor will you find "the ability to create" any other construction
expressly allowed. We see descriptions of constructions, and
descriptions of how to interpret constructions. With TKD 3.2.1, he
provides now way of interpreting the construction.
Now, you didn't answer any of my questions. You started off by saying
that compounds and noun-nouns are the same. You equated their
interpretations, and said that if it made sense one way, then it'd make
sense the other. At that point, it appeared that you were permitting the
construction of compound nouns. You made a similar assertion above, as I
noted.
It now appears that you won't permit the construction of compound nouns.
In all the time I've been on this list, I have never heard someone claim
that we can't create compound nouns. I've heard (and given) many warning
about their interpretation, mostly w.r.t what ~mark calls "hindsight"
words. But it has been the general assumption here that compounding is a
grammatical construction available to us.
Just to keep track, your claim is that we cannot form new compounds. Is
it still your belief that compounds and noun-nouns have the same rules
for interpretation?
Here are, it seems to me, the questions we need answers to:
a) are compounds and noun-nouns different?
b) can we construct novel compounds (or are we restricted to what we find
in TKD)?
c) if we can construct them, how do we interpret them?
Your answers, I'm guessing, are no, no, and n/a. Mine are yes, yes, and
we need to know.
If you don't believe in novel compounds, then you must stare in blank
incomprehension at words like /HolQeD/ and /Holtej/.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
--Holtej