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

[Iikka Hauhio]

SuStel:

> A noun-noun construction is a combination of nouns that are not a compound noun, not a complex noun, and may or may not be lexicalized.

But what is the concrete difference between a compound noun and a noun-noun construction? Imagine that instead of 'Iw HIq we had 'IwHIq and instead of ropyaH we had rop yaH. How would the language be different? Would these words have different a usage, meaning, grammar or pronunciation? Would something else be different, and if so, what? What is the justification to have a distinction between these two ways to form similar word combinations?

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 27th, 2022 at 03.25, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 1/26/2022 7:57 PM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
>
>> De'vID:
>>
>>> I also think, as a result of this conflation, that you're misreading the sentence ("legitimate" in the sense that it would be found in a dictionary). The unwritten implication here is "... found in a dictionary (as one word written without spaces)". You wrote that he contradicts himself by including "compound nouns with spaces", but it's not a contradiction because compound nouns are written without spaces in his convention. The dictionary contains both compound nouns (without spaces) *and* noun-noun constructions (with spaces), but by the classification described in TKD, they are different classes of noun constructs.
>>
>> How I read it is that there are "combinations of nouns". If a combination is a "legitimate compound noun", it works as discussed in TKD section 2. Then if a combination is not a legitimate compound noun, it works like a noun-noun construct discussed in section 3.4. This would mean that noun-noun constructs are not "legitimate".
>
> No. TKD says "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)." It doesn't say that noun-noun constructions are not legitimate in this sense; it says it is possible to combine them as noun-noun constructions even ifthey're not legitimate. That doesn't mean that all noun-nouns are illegitimate; it means that even if the noun-noun is not legitimate, you can still construct it. You don't need the dictionary's permission to construct a particular noun-noun.
>
> So 'Iw HIq is a noun-noun that appears lexicalized. It represents a known thing that has a set phrase. nuH pegh does not appear in the dictionary. It is coined on the spot and does not represent a set, lexicalized phrase. That passage about "legitimate" combinations is about being allowed to construct phrases like nuH pegh even though they don't appear in the word list.
>
>> But sections 2 and 3.4 describe very similar constructs (they are both quite vague and section 3.4 doesn't really explain the genitive behavior of the noun-noun construct). What is the difference between a "compound noun" and a "noun-noun construction"? The only difference I see is that one has spaces and the other has not.
>
> A compound noun is a type of complex noun that is lexicalized. A noun-noun construction is a combination of nouns that are not a compound noun, not a complex noun, and may or may not be lexicalized. We assume the convention that we may not create compound nouns because we cannot create lexicalized terms, but we can create noun-noun constructions because we can create non-lexicalized terms.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220127/82523463/attachment-0005.htm>