<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SuStel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="gmail-">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q"
<<a href="mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com" target="_blank">niqolay0@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25
AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target="_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto"><span>> <span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">naHQun
also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as
*{bIQpuH}</span>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">>
"island"</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br>
</span></div>
</span>
<div dir="auto">Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ
puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases
rather than compound nouns but IIRC he's said that
it's not a big deal to prefer one way over the other
(or something to that effect, at least).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span><span class="gmail-"><div class="gmail-m_-8060680789515774368moz-cite-prefix">On 7/13/2017 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">So we can glue two nouns together ?</div>
</blockquote>
</span>Let's take the phrase <b>baS 'In</b> <i>metal drum.</i> Let's
suppose you've learned it as a single word, <b>baS'In.</b> Now
tell me the word for a drum that you THINK is made of metal.
<p>If you said <b>baS'InHey,</b> that means <i>thing you think is
a metal drum,</i> not something you know is a drum but which you
only think is made of metal.</p>
<p>If you said <b>baSHey'In,</b> okay, that means what I asked, but
now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really
dealing with two words after all, and just taking away the space
punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing" those
nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove
a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying <b>baSHey
'In?</b> </p></div></blockquote><div><p>Let's take the phrase <b>DIvI' may' Duj</b> <i>Federation battle cruiser.</i> Let's
suppose you've learned it as a single word, <b>DIvI'may'Duj.</b> Now
tell me the word for a battle cruiser that is affiliated with a group you THINK is the Federation.</p>
<p>If you said <b>DIvI'may'DujHey,</b> that means <i>thing you think is
a Federation battle cruiser,</i> not something you know is a battle cruiser but which is affiliated with a group you only think is the Federation.</p>
<p>If you said <b>DIvI'Heymay'Duj,</b> okay, that means what I asked, but
now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really
dealing with three words after all, and just taking away the space
punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing" those
nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove
a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying <b>DIvI'Hey may' Duj?</b> </p><p>To be less of a <b>petaQ</b> about it: The point of leaving out spaces between nouns and/or making them into a single compound noun is to emphasize the relationship between those nouns, to say that both (or all three) concepts are inherent or essential parts of the thing being discussed, and not merely incidental. To use a contrived example, <b>maS puH Duj</b> could be written as, say, <b>maS puHDuj</b> (to emphasize that this is a land vehicle, and that, incidentally, it is on the moon or somehow related to a moon, but the concept of doing things on a moon is not an essential part of its nature) or perhaps <b>maSpuH Duj</b> (to emphasize that the moon's terrain is a significant concept in and of itself -- perhaps it has some unique geological feature -- and then, additionally, there's a vehicle that is somehow involved with that terrain that is being discussed), or just straight up <b>maSpuHDuj</b> (which would emphasize that being on moon land is an inherent part of the vehicle's design, like, say, an Apollo lunar rover). In the end, of course <b>maS puH Duj</b> and <b>maSpuHDuj</b> mean pretty much the same thing, but there are nuances and connotations that can be suggested by how the nouns are grouped together.<br></p></div><div>Personally, I don't usually combine noun-noun phrases into a single word (mostly because it's a contentious issue). If I did, I'd mostly just stick to existing noun-noun phrases for which we have set meanings (like <b>SorHap</b> for wood, <b>muDDuj</b> for airplane, or <b>ghav'uSqan</b> for steel) since my intended meaning would have an obvious precedent. And I wouldn't mind if someone else used <b>SorHap</b> et al. either. Conversely, I don't think I'd accept a simple possessive construction as a compound, since a thing's owner is rarely an inherent part of its "essential nature"<b>.</b> (Although this is not always the case, e.g., battle cruisers owned by the Federation.) <br><br>It's important to avoid confusion and be understood, but to be honest I think this issue is far less prone to hazards than it's being presented as here. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Related question: If you're squishing words together (and not
using slang), is a <b>DeSHom</b> an arm-bone or a minor arm?<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></p></div></blockquote><div>Is <b>DIS</b> a year or a cave? You have to tell from context, just like every other homonym in Klingon. I'd probably avoid <b>DeSHom</b> for arm-bone even if I were more inclined to make compound nouns, since it's not really a set phrase like <b>Sor Hap</b> and because <b>-Hom</b> is an actual suffix. But in a bone-related context (or any context where the idea of a "minor arm" was more nonsensical than "arm bone", which is probably most contexts), I would probably interpret it as "arm-bone" and just shrug off the ambiguity.<br></div></div></div></div>