User talk:Tkeu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Tkeu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me at User talk:Ruakh (my talk page), or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

—RuakhTALK 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compound (linguistics)

Hi,

I disagree with your recent edits to Compound (linguistics). First of all, not all compounds are formed using smikhut; that's only used for noun-noun compounds. Your text implies otherwise. Second of all, smikhut doesn't necessarily form compounds; for example, simlat ha-yalda ("the girl's dress") uses smikhut, but is not a compound. Your text implies otherwise. (Note: Semitic linguists will sometimes call this a "noun compound", but you can see that it doesn't fit the definition of "compound" given in the very first sentence of the article, as simlat ha-yalda is not a single lexeme.) Thirdly, you claim that beit sefer is exocentric; but I think it's quite clearly endocentric. Finally, it seems that this paragraph should be integrated into the preceding paragraph, as it seems to be an example of the preceding paragraph's topic ("the relationship between the elements of a compound may be marked").

—RuakhTALK 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ruakh, I agree not all compounds are formed using smikhut, as a counterexample there is: טלפון נייד (mobile phone); So the wording needs to be corrected. I also agree that smikhut isn't used only for compounds - it also forms the genitive case in Hebrew; If the wording implies otherwise - that needs to be changed too. However, the important point is that smikhut is used to form noun-noun compounds, is in fact very important in this respect. The reason is very obvious: when these languages juxtapose nouns to form compounds, they have by analogy implemented the rules for noun juxtaposition which initially implied the genitive. As for "beit sefer" being exocentric: Well, a school may be a house, but it isn't a bookhouse (which would naturally be a library, I think). So I believe it is midway between endocentricty and exocentricty - but possibly I am making here an original contribution to linguistics.
So I agree that you amend my edits in line with your remarks, as long as smikhut remains cited as the most important mode for forming compounds in Hebrew. Tkeu 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
O.K., thanks. I've done so; please feel free to make further changes. :-) —RuakhTALK 07:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value in Use

Ouch! I let my U.S.-centricness show by not including IVS definitions for these terms but instead relying on common usage among appraisers in the U.S. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct.Thesurveyor (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)