tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 16:55:02 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: pu'jIn

David Trimboli (david@trimboli.name) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



Christopher Doty wrote:
>> It says "(building) plan/map making science." First, I have to figure
>> out what you mean by "(building)." If I just saw {pu'jIn chenmoHghach
>> QeD}, I'd think "cartography." Now, one might think of "building
>> cartography" as "architecture," but it didn't come to my mind
>> immediately. If someone told you out of the blue that he practices
>> "building cartography," you'd at least have to pause to figure out what
>> he meant.
> 
> You've assumed for this that pu'jIn really means map, and is only by
> extension used to refer to building plans.  If the two meanings are
> equal, there's no reason to prefer

Okay, let's make everything work better by talking about the person 
rather than the science. A {pu'jIn chenmoHwI'} is a person who makes 
diagrams of places or things. So a {qach pu'jIn chenmoHwI'}, is a 
building that makes diagrams of places or things. :)

No, we have to reorganize the way we parse these nouns. It's not about a 
kind of {pu'jIn chenmoHwI'}, it's about the maker of {qach pu'jIn}. That 
makes more sense.

Loading up on nouns in a noun phrase may make logical sense, but it's 
often difficult to parse.

>> TKD 3.4: The noun–noun construction
>>    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 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.)
>>       [Then the discussion of how the noun–noun construction works.]
>>
>> In other words, compound nouns appear in dictionaries. To make your own
>> compounds, use the noun–noun construction.
>> In addition, Okrand doesn't use compound nouns in sentences unless he's
>> already put the compound noun in the word lists, or explicitly tells us
>> it's a word. When he wants one noun to modify another noun (i.e., to
>> play a genitive role), he uses the noun–noun construction. For instance,
>> KGT gives us {baS 'In} "metal drum," not *{baS'In}.
>>
>> There are a couple of words he waffles on. I believe we have both
>> {ro'qegh 'Iwchab} and {ro'qegh'Iwchab}, for example. In cases like this
>> we must assume that either is correct; we cannot "enforce" the use of
>> one over the other.
> 
> ** ... 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.)**
> 
> To me, this means that nouns can be strung together at will, assuming
> that the sense is reasonable.
> 
> Perhaps we're having an issue with "compound" versus "noun-noun." I
> don't honestly see a difference, but I'm fully willing to admit that
> what I said above wasn't a compound: sure, it doesn't occur in
> dictionaries.  But it is a perfectly valid noun-noun(-noun etc.)
> construction.

A noun–noun construction is formed as {X Y}, not {XY}. There is a space 
between the nouns; they are separate words. A compound noun is a single 
word.

What you said *is* a perfectly valid noun–noun construction when {QeD} 
is its own word.

So yes, you can string nouns together at will as separate nouns in 
noun–noun constructions, but you cannot form compound nouns at will; 
those must come from dictionaries.

>> Easy there, buddy! I'm on your side.
> 
> Well, sorry, then.  I've gotten rather used to being attacked on here,
> so I just assumed that you were doing the same.  Again, apologies.

meqlIj vIyaj 'ej vIpIHpu'. qay'be'.

-- 
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush







Back to archive top level