[tlhIngan Hol] using {ngan} as a suffix {ngan} as the suffix {-ngan}

[Iikka Hauhio]

ghunchu'wI':

> No. Leaving out spaces is not what makes a compound noun “legitimate”. Being a common combination is what grants it its own dictionary entry. Things like {ropyaH qach} for “hospital” and {'Iw HIq} for “bloodwine” are lexicalized terms because they have a specific meaning when the words are used together, regardless of whether or not they remain separated by a space when used.

You must have misunderstood me. 'Iw HIq and ropyaH qach are lexicalized, I haven't denied that. Both compounds are included in a dictionary, so they both are legitimate (this is Okrand's definition of "legitimate"). My argument was that they should be written without space: in TKD Okrand says that legitimate copounds don't have a space.

ghunchu'wI':

> I will be generous and assume you’re not just arguing to be contrary, but instead are basing your arguments on a non-native-English misinterpretation of things that are clearly understood by native speakers of English. In which case I suggest that you cease projecting your mistaken ideas onto what native English speakers are saying, and just read and accept their words without twisting them to fit your preconceptions.

Please don't assume anything. You clearly didn't understand me, so I might as well say that you can't understand it because your native language is English. Please just accept what I say. That is what you sound like.

SuStel:

> You're saying that the current usage is not consistent. I completely agree. There are examples of compound nouns I wouldn't expect to be compounded, and examples of noun-nouns that I could easily imagine being compounded.
>
> You're saying there are possible ways to write consistently. Again, I agree. We could make up our own rules to cover all situations. And wedohave our own rules: we have developed a convention whereby we do not invent our own compounds, and any genitive nouns get a space before their head nouns; only Okrand can invent compounds. It's not always consistent with what Okrand has done, but as you AND Okrand both admit, Okrand himself hasn't been consistent.

Great that we agree. There doesn't seem to be any dispute between us anymore.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 27th, 2022 at 02.04, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 1/26/2022 4:31 PM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
>
>> So if I interpret you correctly, you argue that Klingons themselves label some compounds as lexicalized as some as not, on a basis unknown to us. Then Okrand depicts this fictional lexicalization with the spaces.
>
> I'm not going to repeat myself on the difference between native grammar and convention. You're not understanding the distinction.
>
>> Outside the fiction of Klingon, I argue that all canon compounds (spaces or no spaces) in TKD, KGT and other dictionary listings are lexicalized, unless explicitly stated by Okrand that they are not. Spaces are not useful in this regard.
>
> You and I use Klingon entirely outside of the fiction of Klingon, but we pretend that we have a bridge to the inside, and we get all our information about Klingon from across that bridge and only from across that bridge. If we didn't, then there would be no reason at all to care about what Okrand says about Klingon, and we could all just make up whatever words and rules we liked. But we're NOT inside that fiction ourselves. We can't go to Kronos and meet Klingons; we can't make a subspace call to a Klingon planet; we can't even hope to be invaded by Klingons in the future. We have only that little fiction between studying an "alien" language and arguing about a semi-joke language that some linguist threw together as a novelty.
>
> Even as things are, there are no Klingon Police that will come and arrest you if you decide you want to shove nouns together. Go right ahead. It would be an interesting test to see if others would tolerate it.
>
>> I'm not promoting any particular alternative punctuation. I'm just saying that the current usage is not consistent and that there are possible ways to write consistently:
>
> If you're expecting to find consistency in Klingon, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Much of the fun is in recognizing that we don't know and can't predict the answer and trying to figure it out.
>
> You're saying that the current usage is not consistent. I completely agree. There are examples of compound nouns I wouldn't expect to be compounded, and examples of noun-nouns that I could easily imagine being compounded.
>
> You're saying there are possible ways to write consistently. Again, I agree. We could make up our own rules to cover all situations. And we do have our own rules: we have developed a convention whereby we do not invent our own compounds, and any genitive nouns get a space before their head nouns; only Okrand can invent compounds. It's not always consistent with what Okrand has done, but as you AND Okrand both admit, Okrand himself hasn't been consistent.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220127/88403f6f/attachment-0005.htm>