tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 17 11:16:16 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: DIpmey tIn chenmoH...
> >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.
>
> ... 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".
You're both saying how these words are not "legitimate", but meanwhile this
thread has already quoted TKD...
>>>
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).
<<<
"It is possible ... even if it is not a legitimate compound noun."
The (four) examples given have spaces between the words; but those examples
are simple possessive. "my child's feet" certainly wouldn't be a compound
noun. None of the examples fit the /muDDuj/ type of construction. And
since TKD says itself is only an outline and not complete, a lack of an
example does not make such an example illegal. (It doesn't make it legal
either. We don't know.)
And this is all phonetic representation, we don't know how they actually
spell these.
DloraH