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

[Iikka Hauhio]

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". But I agree that it can be read in the way you suggest.

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.

SuStel:

> maj! I'm glad we can agree that the convention to distinguish between compound nouns and noun-noun constructions with punctuation is a reasonable one.

It is reasonable as long as there is a reason to make a distinction between "compound nouns" and "noun-noun constructions". It is not yet clear to me what their difference is.

We agree that Okrand is inconsistent when deciding whether a word is a compound noun or a noun-noun construction.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 27th, 2022 at 02.43, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 1/26/2022 7:16 PM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
>
>> 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").
>
> As De'vID has just pointed out, the term "compound" has a specific meaning in TKD: it refers to complex nouns formed by putting together two or more other nouns. jolpa' is a compound; 'Iw HIq is not.
>
>> My argument was that they should be written without space: in TKD Okrand says that legitimate copounds don't have a space.
>
> Which means that a noun-noun like 'Iw HIq is not a compound noun, not that it can't appear as a "legitimate" entry in a dictionary.
>
>> 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.
>
> maj! I'm glad we can agree that the convention to distinguish between compound nouns and noun-noun constructions with punctuation is a reasonable one.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220127/fe7a4753/attachment-0009.htm>