tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 13:38:13 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: geography

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "d'Armond Speers, Ph.D." <[email protected]>

> I'm not sure what specific words you're looking for in TKD that would
allow
> productive use of compound nouns, but the text "...may be used along with
> another noun to form a compound noun" seems to me to allow this.  But even
> without these words, I don't see a distinction made in TKD between mere
> descriptions of non-productive word-forming processes and productive
> word-forming processes that would justify such a restriction against novel
> compound nouns.  Also note, that the example word here, {tIjwI'ghom}, is
not
> in the wordlist.  This seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that this
is
> a productive process.
>
> For the record, I *would* accept {puHtej} as a context-specific
description
> of a geologist or whatever, but I wouldn't add it to an offical lexicon
> (like I wouldn't add {tIjwI'}).

{tIjwI'ghom} is a good counter-example.  I notice, however, that your own
{pojwI'} program lists {tIjwI'ghom} in its wordlist.  :)  Is it a general
word, or is it a context-specific description?

Maybe constructing compound nouns is a sometimes-productive process?

>  It would need further explanation, to
> distinguish it from, say, a cartographer or a surveyor.  And once that
> context has expired, it would need new explanation in a novel context.  I
> don't see this as a limitation of compounding, but merely a fact about how
> languages work.  I could use the word "linguist," but different contexts
> might apply this word to language teachers, professional translators,
> phonologists, socio-linguists, and so on, and only a specific context will
> make that clear.

maQIjtaHvIS reH SoH po' law' jIH po' puS.

SuStel
Stardate 4166.7

Back to archive top level