Talk:Compound (linguistics)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmnahEssa. Peer reviewers: AmnahEssa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adnan1192, Anitaebadi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

In official German often the Fugen-S is not used, whereas the colloquial language uses it much more often. For example the official German Armed Forces term for cadet is "Offizieranwärter" (officer candidate), but most people would rather say "Offiziersanwärter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.67.113 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If unsure, just refer to the extra s as an interfix, although it's only a collective term and doesn't explain its real function. As Germanic languages write compound nouns as one word, I'd say it's not meant to grammatically distinguish the words, but to facilitate pronunciation. In Swedish, there are other interfixes than the s, such as in familjefar, from familj (family) and far (father). I think this reinforces, if needed, the notion that the interfix isn't a genitive marker. Andailus (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The larger problem with the section on German compounds is that it deals with only a subtype, the endocentric ones. It completely leaves out the very common exocentric ones, like Rotkehlchen (a bird with a red throat), Großmaul (a person with a big mouth), or Gernegroß, a very interesting combination of an adverb with an adjective denoting a person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4201:2000:F87E:39DD:381:71AB (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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. —Ruakh_TALK 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)

Defining word may not be trivial, but at least in ordinary usage, in English, two words that are written with a space between them are two words and not one word. Science fiction is a compound, but it is not a word. Based on Wikipedia and other sources, I understand that a lexeme is a word in the ordinary sense and can't consist of two ordinary words with a space between them. If that is correct, then the current lede sentence, "In linguistics, a compound is a lexeme (less precisely, a word) that consists of more than one stem," is not correct. Anomalocaris (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Huddleston & Pullum (both eminent linguists) in their 2002 Cambridge Grammar of the English language, define compounding as the formation of a new base by combining two bases (p. 28). A lexical base for them is essentially the root or stem of a lexeme. They point out why word spaces are very inadequate for diagnostic tests for compounds (for which they give FIVE). They point out that daisy wheel, daisy-wheel and daisywheel are alternate spellings of the same thing. This problem is not isolated. And they also give the exmaple of "full stop" (British English for "period", of course) as a true compound that just happens to always be written with a space between the two parts. Stevemarlett (talk) 14 February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

I have no problem with the fact that some compounds can be written in two or three ways — as one word, or as two words with a space, or as two words with a hyphen. I do have an issue with the lede sentence, because I understand that a lexeme is a word in the ordinary sense, that is, not two words with a space or hyphen between, and if that is correct, the lede sentence is incorrect. Contrariwise, if the lede sentence is correct, then I believe the lexeme article should be rewritten to clarify that a lexeme can be comprised of two or more words in the ordinary sense of the word word. Anomalocaris (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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 … —Ruakh_TALK 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

English disease?

Text says:

Moreover, the English way of compounding words is spreading to other languages: There is a trend in Scandinavian languages towards splitting compound words, known as word split error or English disease[citation needed].

Is an increasing error frequency a trend? My experience is that the level of protests from Swedish speakers was directly proportionate to the error frequency, so it cannot be a trend in the language. It is a phenomenon, allegedly connected to MicroSoft Word, that is so-so-common, but it has decreased considerably lately; probably something with some MicroSoft Word update... Said: Rursus (☻) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And this "English disease" I never heard. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples of common longer compounds in English

The business world seems to produce a lot of very long compounds, an example or two might enhance this good article. I'm thinking of things like:

• a diskdrive failure recovery methods manual,
• our board member relationship-building weekend retreat program will include..., or
• the frontline management conference keynote speaker's address (the possessive clitic helping to identify the compound).

I suspect there would be reliable sources that discuss trends in technical or jargon English regarding such compounds. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Syllabic abbreviation

Should this article link to Syllabic abbreviation or include content from it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.152.104 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent trends (?)

Is this a good chapter at all? Some of its content seems to belong to how the Germanic languages treat compound nouns (namely that it is considered erroneous in e.g. Swedish to split it into two or more words). The rest has to do with syllabic abbreviation, a totally different area. Some coherency, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andailus (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the distinction between compounding and spelling?

In the entry for the Danish language we have this word kvindehåndboldlandsholdet translated as the female handball national team. Now if we were to write the femalehandballnationalteam (since English doesn't have the affixed article, this will have to be two words) what would be altered save the spaces? There are a few fun examples (or funexamples) floating about Wikipedia, and I must mention two, first the ever recurring (and meant as a joke) Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmütze from German and the less known, but every bit as jocular Vaðlaheiðarvegamannaverkfærageymsluhússlyklakippuhringurinn from Icelandic. But is it really not just a question of spelling, i.e. inserting spaces or not? Granted, the inflection of some languages demands one word, but is there any reason except for historical/traditional ones, that English could not produce such words. It is, after all, just like history, "just one damn thing after another". :-) Cheers 85.220.118.164 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation?

So what does the word 'lentokonesuihkuturbiinimoottoriapumekaanikkoaliupseerioppilas' mean? Invmog (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Airplane jet turbine engine auxiliary mechanic non-commissioned officer student, according to Compound (linguistics)#Formation of compounds —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

Dubiosity in Recent trends: the section tells that the trend to split words ("orddelingsfeil", word split errors) essentially is a new trend to create new compounds in Nordic languages, and then all logics is lost to me: since when is a new erroneous habit to split compounds erroneously a new way of word formation based on compounding? The contents of the section is kind of funny and enjoyable, the Swedish reknowned counterpart is "fryst kycklinglever" (frozen chicken liver) vs. "fryst kyckling lever" (frozen chicken is alive!), but these aren't word formations by compounding. The examples are grave semantic errors and very unintended. The content of the section doesn't belong to this article. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just changed it from "the English way of compounding words" to "the English way of spelling compound words". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.55.81 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

English

Also, compounds are pronounced continuously as one word in at least German and north Germanic languages, whereas English pronunciation may just reflect the way it is written.

I believe it's not that English pronounces compounds as separate words, nor even that German pronounces compounds as single words; it's that German pronounces non-compounds as separate words. Speech inside a prosodic unit isn't really broken into staccato, but a language may have particular phonological processes that work on the word level, and may distinguish single compound words from series of words. English uses only stress for this (and compounded words often retain secondary stress, making the distinction less salient), while German has final obstruent devoicing. You could make the case just as easily that English pronounces all words in a prosodic unit "continuously as one word". — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek o, Latin i

I was looking for an article explaining Greek and Latin compounds, but this article does not mention them. I found the article Classical compound via Google after not finding it here: in the very least, it should be mentioned in the article that words of Greek and Latin origin are called as such and not just linked to in the "see also". --Squidonius (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Verb–noun compounds

I'm not sure who wrote that, in the Romance languages, the verb appears in the third person singular present indicative, but anyway that is not correct. It's very clear that, in the Romance languages, the verb is in the second person singular imperative (and the same is true for English, by the way). This becomes obvious whenever the second person singular imperative is different from the third person singular present indicative. In Spanish, this happens only in a few cases when the second person singular imperative is irregular; e.g. haz from the verb hacer (the third person singular present indicative is hace), thus: hazmerreir (from haz + me + reir) = 'laughingstock' (lit. "make me laugh"). But, in Italian, this happens with all the verbs in -ere, which have the third person singular present indicative ending in -e and the second person singular imperative regularly ending in -i, thus: reggipetto and reggiseno (from the verb reggere = 'to hold, support'), both meaning 'bra' (lit. "breast-holder" or "breast-supporter"), and countless other examples. Pasquale (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Verb-verb compounds in English and other Germanic languages

I'm surprised no mention is made of verbs like sleepwalk or playfight, which certainly seem like verb-verb compounds to me. Other Germanic languages have such compounds too, like Dutch slaapwandelen. CodeCat (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but they don't seem like verb-verb compounds to me. While sleep can be a verb, it can also be a noun. So, sleepwalk is to walk (verb) during sleep (noun). Similarly to playfight is to fight (verb) as a form of play (noun). Klbrain (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The linguistics article “Compounds (linguistics)” could benefit from a couple alterations. The lead section although interesting doesn’t capture the intention of the article. The article seems rather wordy and long, this is most likely because the topic “compounds” is such a broad topic. I would suggest having a general page introducing main categories and point with links to pages that have a more detailed explanations and examples. Finally, I think the article would be more creditable with more references. There is so much information presented and several examples yet only four references used. --Maebaran (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

General Comments

This article gets particularly confusing around the portion where it addresses examples from other languages. There are already portions of examples present in the "Subclasses" section, and although they seem to be well developed, combining the examples would probably help to clear up some confusion. Perhaps the addition of a table may help? The article is also a little wordy, especially around the "Syntactic classification" section, with the portion on verb-verb compounds in particular being rather cramped, example and word wise. Rrrrrllllleeeee (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

number of components

In Finnish, although there is theoretically no limit to the length of compound words, words consisting of more than three components are rare. Even those with less than three components can look mysterious to non-Finnish such as hätäuloskäytävä (emergency exit).

That last is a bad example; it must have at least three components, as ä or y cannot occur in the same morpheme with u or o (see vowel harmony). The passage previously said:

In Finnish there is no theoretical limit to the length of compound words, but in practice words consisting of more than three components are rare. Even those can look mysterious to non-Finnish, take hätäuloskäytävä (emergency exit) as an example.

—Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Romance verb-noun compounds

In Spanish, for example, such compounds consist of a verb conjugated for the second person singular imperative followed by a noun (singular or plural): e.g., rascacielos (modelled on "skyscraper", lit. 'scratch skies'), sacacorchos ('corkscrew', lit. 'pull corks'), guardarropa ('wardrobe', lit. 'store clothes').

In a-stem verbs, the second person singular imperative is indistinguishable from the third person singular present indicative, which is how I've always (mis)understood this element; se llama ‘sacacorchos’ porque saca los corchos. Can we have a Romance example where these forms are dissimilar? —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Historically speaking, second person singular imperatives in Latin ended in a long vowel, the characteristic vowel of the verb's declension. The third person singular present indicative ended in the same vowel, except with -t and shortened. Only in one conjugation are the two different (number 3).

• 1. conjugation: amā, amat; 2. monē, monet; 3. cape, capit; 4. audī, audit

In Vulgar Latin, the final t was lost, making the two forms both end in a vowel, and the final vowel, because it was unstressed, became short, and (only the original?) short i of the third conjugation became e. So, the two forms are likely to be identical in most Romance languages, except maybe Sardinian and Romanian, which had different developments for short vowels. The idea that the noun comes from an imperative seems rather bizarre. I think it's far more likely that it comes from a third person singular, or simply from the root of the verb, which, as we can see here, is basically identical to the 3rd sg., but I don't have a source for this. — Eru·tuon 19:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain this S?

What is the extra S doing in compounds like communications protocol and systems programming? I hate constructs like that, because my brain cannot parse them.

• Can it be plural form? I find that absurd. In all examples I can think of, you would say leaf blower, potato farmer, grape juice and paper clip factory, not leaves blower, potatoes farmer, grapes juice or any combination of paper(s) clip(s) factory, regardless of the plurality of leaves, potatoes, grapes, papers or clips typically involved. This adheres nicely with the principle stated in the article (about germanic languages), that any inflection is on the last part of the compound, which then inflects the compound as a whole. To me, putting any other part, say, in plural form is plain absurd.
• Can it be epenthesis aka de:fugenlaut aka sv:foge-s aka no:fuge-s? I guess salesman would be an example of that. A better known example in English is speedometer. That's admittedly not with an S, but S is actually the most common epenthesis letter in Nordic languages. As a native Nordic speaker, I have no problem with this interpretation of the S in salesman, but systems programming? No way! This use of S is reserved for making compounds that are pronounced together as one word easier to pronounce.
• Can it be genitive? No, that is spelled with an apostrophe in English, and I have seen compounds like that, in English texts, systematically without.

--84.209.119.158 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In origin, it's probably either the genitive or the plural suffix, but the use is inconsistent as you mention yourself. That's not really surprising though; similar things happen in Dutch and German as well, where you can have a compound with the singular, plural or genitive. People often form compounds whichever way they feel is most natural, but it's hard to explain why one form is preferred over another (I'm a native speaker and I couldn't say). Things become much clearer if you look at the older Germanic languages though. The genitive singular type of compound is used much more in North Germanic than in West Germanic, and it was as good as absent from East Germanic (Gothic). In Old Norse and Icelandic, you find some compounds with the bare stem, some with the genitive singular, and some with the genitive plural. There are also still some examples of genitive singular endings other than -s in Swedish, such as -o in kronofogde or läroverk (this -o originates from the Old Norse ōn-stem genitive singular ending -u). In Icelandic, which retains a functional case system with multiple inflection types, this is still regular. CodeCat (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful answer! Reading some good Old Norse, I suppose the loss of that flexible grammar may have created a need for compound words as a replacement. Example: Heimskringla (from Norse: kringla heimsins, literally the circle earth's), is perhaps the equivalent modern way to express both definiteness of the circle and our planet in genitive. But for modern words like communications protocol, that are not easily traceable back to Norse (except Bluetooth of course), I would put my money on your first explanation, that people just speak whichever way they feel like, which can happen when many speak the same language. --84.209.119.158 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example: Linguistics article. In this case, linguistic article would not have unambiguously been a compound noun in English, because the adjective-noun sequence is also syntactically valid as separate words (not that it makes much semantic difference). But inflecting the adjective as if it was a noun rules this out. Multiple consecutive nouns are always a compound noun. --84.209.119.158 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In English, it's not unusual to use the plural form to form nouns denoting a collective activity or field of study. "Communications" is a noun by itself, as are "linguistics", "mathematics", "physics", "economics", and so on. CodeCat (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Systems programming, like systems engineering, systems theory and systems science, does indeed exist, as do mathematics professors. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Why no English examples? …and why is särskrivning, used as examples of not compounding?

Why, among the examples, are not a section for English ones included? Like "football", "laboratory coat", "lobster sauce", "freeze-dry"… This would be of great value, as it shows the (inconsistent) tendency, in English, to often separate the component parts of a compound, with spaces.

There is also a general tendency in the article, to confuse "word" with "bit of writing that is separated by spaces". "lobster sauce" is one word. Not two. If one takes a sentence with the term in it, in a sentence, and classifies which bit of the sentence is what, "lobster sauce" will not be classified as two separate parts, but as one single unified noun. One word. Just like "long sword" is one word, referring to a specific type of sword. One noun …whereas "long sword" (spelled exactly the same, as you can see), however, is a sword that is long. A noun preceded by an adjective. Similarly "space bar" is one word (noun), referring to the keyboard key, whereas "space bar" is two words, referring to a bar, that is in, or concerning, space. (look in Wiktionaries category "English multiword terms", and you'll find that most are single word terms. Some are genuinely multiword idioms or phrases, certainly, but most…)--213.113.114.132 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@213.113.114.132: A late answer (and a comment to @Espoo, who I think oversiplified a little in this edit): There is an important difference between the grammar of modern English, as compared to all other Germanic languages I know of, including older English: Modern English has almost entirely eliminated congruence in (nominal) declension; the others have not. For this reason, in modern English, there is a much smaller syntactical difference between compounds on the one hand and attribute constructions on the other, than it earlier was and still is in the others. Since the syntactical difference is so small, there is less need to distinguish compounds as different from attribute constructions in English.

OK, this explanation was a bit abstract. I hope the following concrete example explains it. As the IP noted, if we meet the two words "long sword" in an English text, they semantically may signify a compound (a special type of sword) or an attribute construction (a sword which is long). When we read "long sword", we have to understand its semantics from the context (although many speakers would pronounce the compound and the attribute condition in somewhat different manners). The same is true for the plural "long swords", and for construction elements like "of the long sword" or "to the long swords".

However, now compare this with the corresponding forms in (modern) Swedish! Now, the singular and the plural of svärd (Swedish for sword) happen to be equal (although the same is not true for the majority of Swedish nouns). Hence the compound långsvärd (the special kind of sword) is the same in singular and plural. Thus, when we consider the compound, "a long sword" and "some long swords" will be translated as ett långsvärd and några långsvärd, respectively. On the other hand, the adjective lång is declined differently, depending on the gender and number of the main word. Thus, if long is an attribute, "a long sword" and "some long swords" are translated as ett långt svärd and några långa svärd, respectively.

Thus, native Swedish speakers in practice make a rather great distinction between the compound and the attribute construction, whether or not they write the compound (correctly) as one or (incorrectly) as two words. On the other hand, the native English speaker doesn't have to bother that much (at least not in writing), and may even use the same construction for "something in the middle of an attribute construction and a compound", which mostly is no option in other Germanic languages. (It also was no option for Chaucer, since, as he shows in his Tales of Caunterbury, in his Middle English the adjectives were still declined in agreement with the nouns.) JoergenB (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semantics

The article reads: "mean the same as the sum of two words (e.g. German: Pressekonferenz, lit. 'press conference')". This makes no sense. A press conference is not in any sense the "sum" of "press" and "conference". It means "a conference/meeting for the press" or addressed to the press. It could have meant all sorts of other things, like a professional conference for the press or about the press (like a "math conference") or a conference where people are forced to go ("a press gang") or a meeting of people to iron clothes.... --Macrakis (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Some English compound words might not be

I'm specifically talking about open compound words. You can say "a chicken egg" and "a chicken one". Since the latter isn't a compound word, one could argue the former isn't either. For comparison, in German you can say "Hühnerei" but you can't say anything akin to "chicken one", thus the German word truly is a compound word, but as I understand it, the English phrase isn't. This wouldn't be the case with all open compound words, though. For example, you can say "an apple tree" but not "an apple one", so this would be a real compound word. Disclaimer: I might be totally wrong as English isn't my language. 77.211.6.158 (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I had to think a moment to come up with a context in which I (native) might say "a chicken one": I made a ham sandwich and a chicken one. That feels more like adjective+noun than like a compound. —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

RfD re "open compound"

Open compound

• Open compound → Open-chain compound  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In coordination with the article's most recent edits, I redirected "open compound" to the proper article since there's no such thing in linguistics (and also no such thing as a spaced compound) but there is such a thing in chemistry. The article's now-deleted reference to concatenation targets the correct computer programming article. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edit of the article says that "press conference" is not a compound. That seems to be contradicted by the first link that I find in a web search for "open compound", at Merriam-Webster.com, which says that "off and on", "little by little", "washing machine" and "field day" are open compounds. When I do a web search for "open compound" (limited to exact string matches only), I primarily find meanings in grammar/linguistics, not chemistry. This is confirmed by the primary definition found in the Wiktionary at Wikt:open compound. The English compound article describes open compounds that are nouns, and the Compound modifier article describes open compounds that are modifiers. Some examples of uses of open compound modifiers are "a Sunday morning walk", "a hotly disputed topic", and "a less disruptive manner". My search for the term "open compound" did not find any usage in chemistry (at least nothing evident in the first 5–10 screen pages of search results), and the Open-chain compound article does not use the phrase "open compound".

The Concatenation article doesn't only refer to computer programming. Its first four words are "In formal language theory", and the Formal language article says it is involved "In logic, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Examples of compounds formed by concatenation are "teapot", "snowball", "paycheck", "hairbrush" and "roadblock".

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Merriam-Webster is a reliable source for definitions, not for linguistics. Accordingly, its definition for compound is accurately stated as "a word consisting of components that are words (such as rowboat, high school, devil-may-care)". The fact that a word such as the adjective off-and-on [i.e., a compound] may be written as off and on [i.e., an adverbial phrase] doesn't change the latter's phrasal identity.
• Wiktionary is not a reliable source for Wikipedia per WP:WINARS.
• The English compound article (which, incidentally is rife with unfounded, uncited, and laughably inaccurate WP:OR) also falls under WP:WINARS.
• All of the compounds in the Compound modifier article are either closed compounds or hyphenated compounds; none are so-called open compounds, i.e., phrases.
• True, the Open-chain compound article doesn't use the phrase "open compound", but the search in article function targeted that article until I redirected "open compound" to Open chain compound rather than to Compound (linguistics).
• Indeed, the Concatenation article has a hatnote that expressly says it's about "the string operation of computer programming." While it's true that linguistic compounds are kind of concatenation, a link from this article to one about computer programming is non sequitur. Besides, all of the examples of compounds formed by concatenation (e.g., "teapot", "snowball", "paycheck", "hairbrush" and "roadblock") are all closed compounds. By contrast, the phrase (i.e., NOT a so-called open compound) road block brings to mind some sort of highway construction material; pay check sounds like something an accountant does to examine salary expenditures.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is only one example of many. While you may quibble with some particular sources, I don't think you can deny that if you do any reasonable search for information about "open compound", you will find that the term is used in sources in the context of grammar and linguistics (and seldom used in chemistry). It is therefore not reasonable to attempt to remove all information about that concept from Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly amenable to this article's describing an open compound as entailing what properly would constitute a phrase that comprises a collocation of lexemes separated by a space, but any such description requires a corresponding cite to a reliable source. Merriam-Webster's schizophrenic utterings don't cut it. Other Wiki articles (including Wiktionary), all of which lack cites on this point, constitute impermissible "cites. Since you allege that open compound "is used in sources in the context of grammar and linguistics," why don't you find some reasoanable source for that proposition and cite it in the article? A Google Scholar search might help you in that effort. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If hotly disputed and less disruptive are compounds, is citizen of Brazil also a compound? —Tamfang (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

More modestly, how about very old ? —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Among those four, citizen of Brazil would be an open compound noun and the other three would be open compound adjectives. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style disagrees, as do linguistics textbooks. Before removing this now-cited fact, please provide a reliable source that explicitly says the interpolation of a space makes something not be a compound, or at least that says whether a word is a compound is based on how it is written on paper (and that languages without a written form can't have a compound, I guess would be the local outcome of that belief? OTOH, the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language says "the status of an item as a compound depends more on phonological than orthographic criteria", which undercuts the idea that either the written form, or the presence/absence of any particular characteristics of the written form actually matter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Compounding is a word formation process based on the combination of lexical elements (words or stems). ... A typical compound in English is textbook." (See Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Compounding in Morphology)

The article cites a work by Scalise and Bisetto (2009, p. 46), who claim high school is an attributive/appositive compound. The article criticizes the work as being "supported only by rather vague descriptions of (Scalise and Bisetto's subordinative, attributive/appositive, and coordinative compound) labels. Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My question for WhatamIdoing, et al, is why conflate compound with settled taxonomies that necessarily involve two or more words, e.g., concatenation, colocation, catenation, and most saliently, phrase? If I have a predicament with my large donkey, there's no compound in saying, "I have a big ass problem." If I have a predicament with my budget, there is a compound in saying, "I have a bigass financial problem." If your noggin feels warm to the touch, there's a collocation but no compound in saying, "I have a hot head." If one of your employees is easily angered, there is a compound in saying, "He's such a hothead." Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to provide information about what is described in reliable sources, not to establish our own principles and withhold information that doesn't seem consistent with them. It is clear that reliable sources exist that use the term "open compound" and that say that constructions like "high school" and "coffee cup" and "toxic shock syndrome" are open compounds that serve as nouns. And "open compound noun" is an open compound noun. If you are describing a predicament involving a large donkey, I believe the phrase "big ass problem" would be an open compound noun, like "toxic shock syndrome". Open compounds also exist that serve as adjectives – e.g., heavy metal in "She went to a heavy metal concert" or pro bono in "He was doing pro bono work" or "type 2" in "She had type 2 diabetes". These things exist, and they are called open compounds. We now have four sources cited in the article that explicitly say this. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I concede that there are reliable certain sources that use the neologistic term open compound, but Wikipedia's job also includes pointing out reliable sources that present contrary perspectives on such a controverted term. This article doesn't do justice to that job, which is the basis of my rants on this talk page. Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Multiword expression article seems relevant to this discussion. It mentions compounds, saying "A multiword expression can be a compound, a fragment of a sentence, or a sentence." For example, perhaps the opening sentence of this article should say that "a compound is a lexeme or multiword expression that ...". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't agree that the Multiword expression, which has its own issues with WP:OR, linguistic inconsistencies and un-cited propositions, is a reliable source for what this article purports. Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like your concern is one that you need to take up with the reliable sources, instead of with Wikipedia editors. WP:You are not a reliable source, and neither are any of the rest of us. The reliable sources say that ice cream is a compound word, even if its spelling might result in an English language learner guessing that it's a cream that's iced. If you think the sources are wrong, then that's fine – you're entitled to your opinion – but nobody here can change the reliable sources. Maybe find a linguistics group on social media? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The main reason my objections (or rantings, if you prefer) are limited to this talk page rather than to editing the article accordingly is that the article says "two or more words or signs... joined with a space (e.g. school bus, high school, lowest common denominator) ... may be an open compound." [Emphasis added.] Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't have an Open compound (linguistics article that purports how an open compound comprises two or more words joined with a space (e.g. school bus, high school, lowest common denominator). I would edit such an article to say, "In some linguistic quarters, the protologistic term open compound purports a composition of two or more words joined with a space (e.g. school bus, high school, lowest common denominator)," and then I'd cite TONS of sources to controvert such a whacky proposition. Truth be told, I'm reconsidering a partial revert to my most recent edit to the article so that readers can more readily make a correlation between a so-called open compound and phrase. Be my guest if you care to beat me to the punch. Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I could not find a definition of "protologistic". I suggest that WP:EDITORIALIZING / MOS:ALLEGED would apply to "purported" (and "quarters" and probably "protologistic"). That phrasing seems designed to cast aspersions rather than to merely describe. However, I think I am starting to get a better understanding of your objection. Do you consider an "open compound" to be a phrase? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll infer a definition for protologistic by referring to protologism. My prior post re editing an Open compound (linguistics) article was a tongue in cheek snipe (i.e., sarcastically substituting protologistic for neologistic) to highlight how misguided the cited sources are. I truly think Wikipedia's compound article straddles if not crosses the fringe line since it purports a lexical item that is, per se, either a phrase or a phraseme. Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Compound (linguistics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Compound (linguistics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Compound (linguistics until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)