tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 18 21:13:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: leSSov/Foresight
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: leSSov/Foresight
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:11:10 -0500
At 11:25 PM 6/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-11 04:39:19 EDT, we see writen:
>
><< The only way to make compound nouns described in TKD is by putting two
> (or more) nouns together. Some of the words in the dictionary look as
> if they were made by combining a noun with a verb, or even two verbs,
> but we can neither do that ourselves or be sure that's how they were
> made in the first place. >>
>
>According to TKD 3.2.1 clearly states the above regarding compound nouns. I
>for one am adamantly adhering to my own belief that other forms of complex
>(not compound) nouns do exist. For evidence that this is allowed, see TKD
>3.2, which states: "Complex nouns, on the other hand, are made of more than
>one part." Especially note the last word in this quotation, "part." This
>does not state that the parts must be nouns. Although we as KLI members have
>resolved to make up no new words from the base words we already have except
>by combining nouns to form compound nouns, we see many instances wherein Marc
>Okrand has used what seems to be verbs combined with nouns, other verbs, etc.
>to form new nouns.
>
>This is a challenge I have picked up. I continue to fight for its cause.
>
You grow extremely tiresome. No one is disputing the existence of complex
nouns.
It's a moot point, anyway. We've resolved not to coin new words, compound
or complex,
because that way lies chaos. So you're championing a non-cause, at least so
far as
the KLI and this mailing list are concerned.
I know, why don't you join the ILG. They're _much_ looser about neologisms than
the KLI. Then you can coin words to your heart's content using any parts of
speech you want. Just stick to canon when communicating with us conservatives.
>peHruS
>
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711