tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 16 10:27:38 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Compound Nouns and N1-N2 (again)
Sorry to have taken so long to get back to this. I've had an
incredibly busy week. I am by no means satisfied with how this was
left.
> If we do make a compound noun, there's no prescribed way to interpret it.
>
> I still read section 3.4 as saying that we can make constructions that
> act like compound nouns, and that if we do this, we get a possessive
> meaning. It states "it is possible to combine nouns IN THE MANNER OF
> A COMPOUND NOUN" (my emphasis). As I see it, this ties compound nouns
> and noun-noun constructions pretty closely. If someone creates a new
> compound noun, I'm going to try to interpret it as a possessive.
I think you are placing the wrong emphasis on the phrase "in the manner
of." I don't think this ties compounds and noun-nouns as closely
together as you do. Let's take a look.
Here's what we know. We know that compounds consist of two or three
nouns in a row, and that noun-nouns are composed in a similar manner
(which I take to mean, two or three nouns in a row. We can discuss
separately whether three is a limit.) We know from the examples that
compounds are not separated internally by spaces, but that noun-nouns
are.
In addition, we know how to interpret noun-nouns. We do not know how
to intepret compounds, as you state above and elsewhere, because
nowhere in TKD does Okrand tell us. But by examining canon, we can see
that there are compounds that do not avail themselves of the compound
noun interpretation, which you also have stated you accept, which I'll
quote:
> I'm even willing to grant the existence of compound nouns that aren't
> noun-noun constructions.
So, let's get back into it.
> I meant that if we *did* make a compound noun, I saw no way
> to interpret it except as a noun-noun construction.
I don't think you have any basis for this interpretation. We do not
have any information about how to interpret compounds, as you point out
above, and again here:
> My claim is that we cannot meaningfully *interpret* new compounds.
> The only rule we have for interpreting any string of nouns comes
> from TKD 3.4, which describes the noun-noun possessive construction.
Not *any* string of nouns, but noun-nouns. If you are going to
take whatever is said in TKD 3.4 and apply it to compounds, then you
are going to sanction constructions like I pointed out before:
* 'Iwvamghargh
* mangvetlhghom
* mu'meytlhej
You are claiming more than you claim above. ("My claim is...").
Specifically:
> If we construct novel compounds, the only way I know of to interpret
> them is according to the noun-noun rule [...]
You have been consistent in this claim throughout our discussion, and
this is the very thing I take exception to. You make this claim, on
the basis of (correct me if I'm wrong) the words "in the manner of" in
the introduction to TKD 3.4. Now, on what basis will you selectively
apply the interpretation of noun-nouns to compounds, while not allowing
the syntax of noun-nouns to apply to compounds as well? Or, do you
find the constructions marked with asterisks above acceptable? It is
my claim that if you accept one, you must accept the other, and you
have no basis for accepting either, much less selectively accepting one
over the other. The only evidence we can draw from in this, is canon,
since Okrand doesn't discuss them specifically. And canon shows that
compounds can have meanings that are not accounted for by TKD's
discussion of noun-nouns.
[changing tracks...]
Let's consider a hypothetical situation. There's a new disease
spreading throughout the galaxy, and affecting all species. No
scientists have yet figured out how to stop it, and it's having
devastating effects. In the Klingon Empire, it has been given the name
/'u'Hegh/.
Okay, I made it up. :) What does it mean? We both agree that TKD
doesn't tell us how to interpret these. We both agree that TKD allows
us to create these. So what do we do? You will try to interpret it as
a noun-noun, but this doesn't work, unless you think the universe
itself is inflicted with the disease. But that's clearly not the case.
It's simply the name of a disease. The Captain may have it (/HoD
'u'Hegh/), my son may have it (/puqloDwI' 'u'Hegh/), I may have it
(/'u'HeghwIj/). (Don't know why I threw that one in there.)
Trying to force this word into /'u' Hegh/ (a noun-noun) changes the
meaning. It's now the universe's death, which means that the universe
is dying, or we're talking about it's future death, or something like
this. But it's *not* /'u' Hegh/. It's /'u'Hegh/, "universe-death", a
nick-name for a devastating disease. How we interpret "universe-death"
is a matter of speculation, but it's not "universe's death."
What I'm saying is, we don't know how to interpret these. We have some
examples, and that's it. In some cases they appear to be similar to
noun-nouns, but in many cases it's clearly not possible, such as with
/mu'tlhegh/ and /'Iwchab/.
Let's talk about syntax for a moment. Compounds are a type of noun.
noun-nouns are possessive constructions. I would describe these
constructions as having different syntactic structures, something like:
NP NP
| / |
N NP |
| | |
noun N N
| |
noun noun
Sorry for the bad ASCII art, I never was that good at it. And these
are far too simplistic, but I don't want to argue esoteric details of
syntactic theory. I just want to identify distinct syntactic
constructions.
Compounds, as a type of noun, fit into the first tree. Noun-nouns fit
into the second. Because the nouns are distinct in a noun-noun,
because they occupy distinct syntactic positions, we can put noun
suffixes on the first noun (except type 5). And, the interpretation of
this construction is a result of the syntactic configuration. What I
mean is, it's not simply the fact that two nouns are side-by-side that
they have a possessive interpretation; consider, for instance:
HoDvaD paq vInob.
Not only do we know that these two nouns, /HoD/ and /paq/, are not
noun-nouns, we know they *cannot* be, because of the type 5 suffix on
/HoD/. But still, these are two nouns, side-by-side. What's
different? They are in a different syntactic configuration. /HoD/ is
probably adjoined to the VP somewhere. But if we allow them to have
the syntactic configuration shown in the second tree, they have the
noun-noun interperation: /HoD paq/ is "captain's book".
Compounds are not noun-nouns. (mantra, mantra...). They fit into the
first tree, with regular non-compound nouns. We have no information
about interpreting them, other than a few examples. And we can both
identify examples of compounds that can not be described as two nouns
in a GENITIVE relation.
So, what do we have?
We know how to build compounds (two or three nouns, without spaces).
We know how to build noun-nouns (two or three nouns, with spaces).
We know how to interpret noun-nouns.
We do not know how to interpret compounds.
Anything else is speculation. We have some examples of compounds, some
of which appear to be similar to noun-nouns, and some which are clearly
not. We know that TKD 3.4 does not generally apply to compounds,
unless you accept */mu'meytlhej/ and the like. And there's the simple,
obvious observation that these are two different constructions,
discussed individually in two separate sections of TKD. Based on the
evidence (TKD, grammar, and canon), I can only conclude that compounds
are not noun-nouns, but something different.
--Holtej