Re: noun compounds

> > >It would be more helpful if attention were paid to the difference
> > >between true compound nouns and the 'epithet noun + head noun'
> > >construct in English (...)
> >
> > >Ray
> >
> > So, what *is* the difference?
>
>As Ray was saying, it's various things, but for instance, you can't
>say "I caught some flat- and swordfish today", you've gotta say "I
>caught some flatfish and swordfish today", because flatfish and
>swordfish are compounds.
I can't? It does sound a little unusual, but I wouldn't think it were wrong.
But then again, I even use constructions like "posi- and negative". :)


>Not all proper compounds are always spelt as one word, but they
>usually are. (e.g. "ice cream")
>I dunno if there's any reliable generalisations about what sorts of
>things fall into one category or the other (...), and to some extent I
>think it's just that the more often a particular phrase is used, the
>more likely it is to become a compound. It's probably just some
>arbitrary lexical thing that you need to've been exposed to the
>language enough before you can work it out...
>
>--
>Tristan.
It's probably related to whether the meaning of the compound is deductable
from their parts. Apple pie is simply pie made from apples, but only certain
black berries are called "blackberries".

Anyway, THAT distinction I do get. It was when Ray wrote:

>In a language like ancient Greek which had real compound
>nouns you just could not do as this Swedish trick.
I read it to mean that "real" compounds exist only in some languages, such
as Ancient Greek. Is there really some reason why compounds like
"watermelon" wouldn't be "real"?

John Vertical

Reply