tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 23 20:45:48 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Compound Nouns

At 12:14 AM 5/23/97 -0700, peHruS wrote:
>I have just re-read TKD three times, every word, carefully.  I am especially
>concerned with the text regarding compound nouns (Sec. 3.2, pp 19-20).  The
>evidence is that we can form compound nouns by connecting two (or more) nouns
>(Sec. 3.2.1); or, we can add {-wI'} to a verb to result in a noun (Sec
>3.2.2).  There exists further evidence that more complex nouns result from
>the connection of simple nouns (Sec. 3.2.3).
>
>However, Sec. 3.2 states that "Complex nouns, on the other hand, are made up
>of more than one part."  I cannot find any restriction that the parts may not
>be parts of speech other than nouns, e.g. verbs.
>
>In HolQeD Vol 3 No 4 Terrence Donnelly writes "I should note... many compound
>nouns contain elements that are listed in the lexicon only as verbs...."
> "There are also compound nouns that appear to be formed from a noun and a
>stative verb."  {HeDon} "parallel course" and {bIQtIq} "river"... I believe
>that their structure indicates that the verb retains its verbal nature in
>these compounds and is the modifier in these cases, unlike the noun-noun
>compound... ... {bIQtIq} is to be interpreted "long water," not "the length
>of the water."  There is even {chuS'ugh} which results from two stative
>verbs.  "In fact, it was my inability to explain them in the usual terms of a
>noun-noun...."
>
>"I believe that a careful study of the existing lexicon and application of
>the compounding principles could greatly expand the vocabulary of Klingon,
>without violating any of the internal logic of the language."
>
>You all know how I, peHruS, feel about allowing complex (perhaps a better
>word here than compound) nouns to come into existence from differing parts of
>speech.  Therefore, I challenge KLI experts to prove why we have chosen to
>compound nouns only from the noun-noun construction.  Did I miss something
>the founding fathers  and mothers wrote when HolQeD first began to be
>published?  Just because I can find no prohibition anywhere in TKD for using
>parts of speech other than nouns to construct new nouns, though I, too, found
>evidence for connecting nouns, can someone else point out to me where you
>found such a  prohibition?
>

I'm afraid I've done some rethinking since I wrote that article.  I'd like to
think of it now as descriptive in scope rather than prescriptive.  I've
(reluctantly) come to agree that absent some sort of central authority, 
new coinings in Klingon will simply lead to a bunch of idolects that aren't
mutually understandable.  We've been dissecting "hind-sight" words on this
list for a long time, and I think its pretty clear that a combination that
seemed obvious to the inventor often has surprising meanings to others.

Marc Okrand of course is our central authority.  We might wish for a more
responsive one, but he's what we've got.  I still believe that the formations
I noted in that article are valid, and could someday _maybe_ be used to
construct more new words.  It's true that we have no absolute prohibition on
coining new compounds, but unless there would be a reliable central 
authority which could say "Yes, this is a valid coining" and then put it on an
authorized list somewhere, using our "freedom" to coin new compounds is
a dangerous thing.

OTOH, I've been guilty of occasional new compounds myself, but usually in
fiction 
(where I for some reason allow myself looser rules).  One thing you might
consider is simply making noun-noun _phrases_ instead of actual compounds.
Somehow this doesn't seem as extreme.

(I know your actual question is why we can't form compounds out of other parts
of speech, but I wanted to speak first to the larger issue of coining new
compounds of any type.  My personal belief is that we can use other
parts of speech, maybe _any_ part of speech, that we can even 
take words attested only as verbs, and use them noun-like in noun compounds 
[while not implying that those verbs have become nouns when used on their 
own, mind you].  But this is something I reserve for my private enjoyment.  
I don't put such coinings into the larger Klingon world of _HolQeD_, 
_jatmey_ or this list.)

>nuH yIwIv 'ej yISuvqa'     Sachjaj tlhIngan wo' tlhIngan Hol je     peHruS
>

-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711

Back to archive top level