tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 16 08:52:19 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: DIpmey tIn chenmoH...


> > >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 . . . .

Yes indeed, and the same caveat applies to me, naturally.

> > 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.

Wait, are we reading the same text?  It says "it is possible to combine 
nouns in the manner of a compound noun."  It doesn't say "it is possible to 
combine nouns in the manner of a noun-noun construct."  I don't have my TKD 
here, I'm just going by what you wrote above.  But it does seem the text is 
talking about creating new compound nouns (like {muDDuj}), not new noun-noun 
constructions (like {muD Duj}).

> > 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 . . .

Absolutely.  Others like {r'Hul} and {DloraH} come to mind...

> > 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.

Okay, are we getting hung up on the word "legitimate"?  I agree one would 
never find something like {muDDuj} in the dictionary ("('legitimate' in the 
sense that it would be found in a dictionary)").  It's a new, temporary 
construction coined to convey an idea for which there isn't a single, 
"legitimate" word.

And also let me agree wholeheartedly with your warnings about hindsight 
words.  I'm not advocating sweeping changes to the lexicon or that better 
suited tools of the language be discarded for sloppy nonce constructions.  
I'd apply the same reservations to my use of {-ghach}.  It's there, but it's 
tricky and it takes a level of skill to use it artfully and to communicate 
clearly.

>  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.

I don't intend this as casually as you imply.  But I disagree with the 
blanket statement that "it's not right."  It's a tool that's available to 
us, described in TKD.

>SuStel
>Stardate 3371.8

--Holtej 'utlh

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Back to archive top level