tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 16 09:38:54 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIpmey tIn chenmoH...
From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
> >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}).
Hmm. If I also quote the next line, it all becomes clear:
----
Some combinations of two (or more) nouns in a row are so common as to have
become everyday words. These are the compound nouns (as discussed in
section 3.2.1). In addition, it is possible to combine nouns in the manner
of a compound noun to prodouce a new construct even if it is not a
legitimate compound noun ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be found
in a dictionary).
The translation of two nouns combined in this way, say N1-N2
(that is, noun #1 followed by noun #2), would be N2 of the N1.
------
This is the beginning of section 3.4: The noun-noun construction. It seems
very clear to me that a distinction has been made between compound nouns and
noun-noun constructions. The quoted text does indeed talk of creating
noun-nouns, not compound nouns.
> >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.
I agree with this interpretation. It's a TEMPORARY construction. QeS lagh
just said he wanted to form new compounds. If he's just looking for
temporary coinages, that's fine. If he expects to be able to coin new
anatomical terms, he should also expect that those terms will not exist
outside of that particular discourse.
> >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.
Your statement did seem to me to encourage casual construction of otherwise
non-existent compound nouns. But I disagree that it's a tool for us to use.
TKD explains how to analyze compound nouns, and tells how to create
noun-nouns. It doesn't say that you can create new nouns through a
compounding process.
SuStel
Stardate 3371.9