Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:09:36 +0100
In message <e9462i$4t9$03$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Richard Herring wrote:
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Compounding, as such, is of course one mechanism. ICan you cite them?
illustrated that in English one could distinguish, if one
likes, three different types of compounding in writing. If
I don't err, there are certain grammatical conventions
Sorry, no. But in an analogous case, namely German, I
could give a reference, namely the well-known "Duden".
(There is a section there entitled "Zusammen- und
Getrenntschreibung").
-schreibung. It's about orthography.
governing which type of compounding one may use in a givenI think you'll find it's more down to the passage of time than grammatical convention. It takes time for people to feel sufficiently comfortable with a new English compound to write it with no separators. The only place I can think of where an orthographic rule might apply is the use of hyphens to avoid ambiguity when a two-word compound is used as a modifier (see this sentence for an example). Even that isn't absolute, hence absurdities like a "fine toothcomb".
situation.
(Thus one has e.g. "body-line" but not "bodyline".)Only used in the fixed phrase "body-line bowling", a technical term from cricket, so there's nothing much driving it to change into a single orthographic word.
Isn't what you said above about the hypen a grammatical
convention?
It's an orthographic convention. Is orthography part of grammar?
Maybe it should instead be called style
convention or something else, I don't know. But that's
not essential to my point, I suppose.
Whether there is something to drive certain aspects of
the evolution of English doesn't concern the fact that
one can formally distinguish three different types of
compounding in English.
In _written_ English. And your "three types" are no more than different historical stages in the acceptance of a new compound. (Or even historical fashions - did you know that at one time "London Road" was written "London-road" ?)
So the orthography reflects the prosody. It doesn't dictate it.The use or non-use of spaces and hyphens to denote this process is just an arbitrary orthographic convention, of no interest to users of the spoken language.
I am not quite sure of that. If there is a space, then
a speaker would be allowed to put in a more or less long
pause there, while, if there is no space (nor hyphen),
he would be at least rather constrained in attempting to
do so.
Of course one is in principle entirely free to pronounce
a word or a sentence in any way one "wants" (that's
certainly also one aspect of "freedom of speech") but,
in order to make one's speech easily understandable by
others, one should generally use a certain pause at the
place where there is a space if the sentence were written
instead of being spoken in my view.
Then your view has it backwards.
(Concerning "liaison"
see what I wrote in my previous post.)
Anyway, in colloquial German, one normally employsOne employs, or the hearer perceives? And (bearing in mind that German puts a glottal stop before some vowels), is the pause really after, or before, each word?
a fairly distinctive pause after pronouncing each word,
Let me put it in another way: it is "normally" a bit easier
for a hearer to segment a sentence heard into the constituent
words, if the language is German, as compared to French.
Anyway, that's my own impression and also that of many of
my friends who, like me, are non-native to both German and
French.
So different languages have different characteristic speech rhythms etc. That doesn't say anything very profound about "words".
--
Richard Herring
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- References:
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Robert Tichacek
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- From: Mok-Kong Shen
- Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- Prev by Date: Re: Humorous Mistake on Goethe Institute Poster
- Next by Date: Re: FIFA: the abbreviation
- Previous by thread: Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- Next by thread: Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading