tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 16 08:23:21 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIpmey tIn chenmoH...
From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
> >We can't create new compound nouns.
>
> Very bold statement.
Be aware that my very bold statements have ghostly "in my opinion" auras
surrounding them. Not everyone can see auras . . . .
> It's interesting that we both read the same text and
> have opposite interpretations. In particular:
>
> >"In addition, it is
> >possible to combine nouns in the manner of a compound 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)."
>
> So, it says right there in TKD that nouns can be combined to produce a new
> compound noun, even though one wouldn't expect to find it in a dictionary.
What is possible is the creation of a noun-noun construct, which is not a
compound noun. It does not say that one can create a new compound noun. It
says one can create a new CONSTRUCT, even if it isn't a real compound noun.
> And in fact we see this all the time. Names aside (SuStel, Holtej),
. . . because as we all know, names need not follow any established rules of
the langauge . . .
> speakers commonly use these constructions (something like {muDDuj} comes
to
> mind). We don't expect to find it in a dictionary, but we know what is
> meant.
I don't accept the word */muDDuj/. Yes, we know what it means, but it's not
a "legitimate compound noun," as described in TKD. I needed to specify an
"airplane" instead of a "boat" yesterday, and I sent a message that included
the term /muD Duj/. Naturally, in speech the two alternatives will sound
identical . . . .
There's a great deal of difference between "we know what it means" and "it's
right." Wee owl no wot thIs meens, but itz naht rite. Encouraging casual
creation of new compound nouns will encourage casual creation of hindsight
words.
SuStel
Stardate 3371.8