tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 17 03:55:09 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIpmey tIn chenmoH...
ja' SuStel:
>What is possible is the creation of a noun-noun construct, which is not a
>compound noun.
I agree completely with this interpretation. However...
>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.
...TKD does tell how compound nouns arise. It's not because they are
"created", but because they are "common". If a string of nouns gets used
often enough, the boundary between words stops being important. The only
reason we don't consider novel compounds "legitimate" is because we've
agreed among ourselves that *we* don't add words to the dictionary.
Because we maintain that *we* don't define usage, *we* can't make a
"legitimate compound noun". But the truth is that we *do* have a
non-native standard of usage, and we *do* have certain turns of phrase that
we prefer over others. As much as we try to stay completely within the
predefined boundaries of TKD etc., e *do* end up with common strings of
nouns which probably deserve to be noted in some sort of "local" addendum
to the official dictionary.
>Encouraging casual
>creation of new compound nouns will encourage casual creation of hindsight
>words.
I too think "casual creation" is a bad thing. But for concepts like {muD
Duj} or {pem Hov}, which are both reasonably understandable and reasonably
common, I have absolutely no problem accepting their use as compound nouns.
-- ghunchu'wI'