Talk:Compound (linguistics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents

[edit] Merge proposal.

Why should Word formation be merged into this article? Compounding is just one kind of word formation. If the articles need to be merged — and I'm not convinced they do — then this article should be merged into that one, not the other way around. Ruakh 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, on both accounts. FilipeS 21:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formation of compounds: German

"In German, for example, the compound Kapitänspatent consists of the lexemes Kapitän (sea captain) and Patent (license) joined by the genitive case marker -s."

Corresponding to Duden's grammar, the -s is a epenthesis, not a genitive case marker! ~ Koocachoo 09:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Epenthesis is phonologically motivated, so I don't think its the right word. But it is not genitive either, there we agree. I am pretty sure that Duden calls it 'Fugen-S', which may be translated as 'joining s'. I'm sure there is a linguistic term for that. Anyways, it used to be genitive, but is not anymore. It is attached to lexemes that form the genetive differently, e.g. 'Verhandlungszimmer' (negotiation room): 'Verlandlung' is feminine and has no -s in genitive case. Yet in compounds, -s- in inserted to join the two lexemes. 91.21.116.48 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with definition

The definition is problematic in that it refers "more than one free morpheme". The Spanish example (which is fine) of ferrocarríl does not have two free morphemes in it. I would think it would be better to refer to the presence of more than one root.

The discussion also seems to dodge the issue of what is a word --- "science fiction" is a compound "word" written (at least) as two words. What strings of "words" are really compounds? Stevemarlett 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd only consider ferrocarril (note the lack of an accent, BTW) to be a "compound word", in the sense I'm used to hearing that term, if we consider ferro to be simply the combining form of hierro. Opinions aside, though, we're better off using an actual definition of "compound word" from a reputable source. A Google search for "compound word" doesn't pull up any obviously-reputable sources as far as I can tell, though it does display a consensus for the vague "a word formed by combining two or more words". Make of it what you will. —RuakhTALK 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining word is not trivial. FilipeS 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stevemarlett completely: a compound is a lexeme composed of more than one lexeme. Dont use google, use a morphology textbook or reference book, or a linguistics dictionary/glossary/encyclopedia. – ishwar  (speak) 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example has-been

Why is this an example of an endocentric compound rather than an exocentric one? Maybe I'm missing something. Stevemarlett 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All you're missing is that I'm a total moron. Sorry about that … —RuakhTALK 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I've just packed it away for a temporary move, otherwise I would pull out the quote right now, but Huddleston & Pullum's Cambridge Grammar of English is excellent in so many ways, and it has some good things (of course) to say about English compounds. They remind us of the standard tests for distinguishing compounds from what they call "composite nominals". And spaces between written words are not a reliable guide in either direction. An example I thought of today to illustrate the problem: "glovebox" and (my dialect) "glove compartment" --- you know, that place in the car where one puts anything except gloves these days. My bet is that these are both the same --- either compounds or composite nominals. But standard English writes them differently. Stevemarlett 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequential or Compound?

Would the Japanese verbs 申し込む mōshikomu lit. "speak-CONJUNCTIVE-crowd/pack" which means 'to apply', and 引っ越す hikkosu lit. "pull-CONJUNCTIVE-cross over" which means 'to move (one's residence)' be considered sequential or compound? They don't seem especially sequential, compared to the Hindi examples given on the page, but they don't really fit the description of compound verbs either, since they have no one primary verb. LeeWilson 03:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)