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

[SuStel]

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 if///they'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/20220126/21a73d5c/attachment-0015.htm>