Move over, Chomsky!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
than vice versa.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111081694/html

(announced on LINGUIST List today)

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

All Germanic languages can make such multi-element compounds, but in
English their use is promoted by the spelling habit of using spaces
between them. Too long compounds often make technical English quite
unclear, worsened by the fact that stress is not written, and that
verbs and nouns etc. often have the same form. Stress often
disambiguates overlong compounds.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
>than vice versa.

English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
> >than vice versa.
> English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.

She claims falsely that e.g. "bedroom furniture" is a three-word compound
(I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
at least) and derivational morphology.

It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.

I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is lust as much a
single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."

[Adam Funk]

cf "Jungfrau" vs "junge Frau"?


--
it's the nexus of the crisis
and the origin of storms

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:32:38 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2023-05-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:53:01 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >> >Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
> >> >than vice versa.
> >> English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.
> > She claims falsely that e.g. "bedroom furniture" is a three-word compound
> > (I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
> > to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
> > at least) and derivational morphology.
> > It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.

> > I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is just as much a

> > single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
> > example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."
>
> cf "Jungfrau" vs "junge Frau"?

A mountain vs. a pair of molehills?

But soft: no frivolity in _this_ group!

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 16 May 2023 10:25:59 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:32:38?AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2023-05-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:53:01?PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> >> >Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
>> >> >than vice versa.
>> >> English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.
>> > She claims falsely that e.g. "bedroom furniture" is a three-word compound
>> > (I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
>> > to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
>> > at least) and derivational morphology.
>> > It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.
>> > I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is just as much a
>> > single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
>> > example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."
>>
>> cf "Jungfrau" vs "junge Frau"?
>
>A mountain vs. a pair of molehills?

Jonkvrouw in Dutch is a rank in nobility.

In German it’s a somewhat different, I find.
https://www.dwds.de/wb/Jungfrau

In Dutch, jongeman and "jonge man" have the same stress, but different
meaning and usage.

>But soft: no frivolity in _this_ group!

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-16, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> cf "Jungfrau" vs "junge Frau"?

If you are looking for an example where both the compound and the
phrase have the same meaning and in fact are both in use:

Grüntee / grüner Tee
Schwarztee / schwarzer Tee

The compound form is used for further compounding:

Schwarzes Meer 'Black Sea'
Schwarzmeerflotte 'Black Sea Fleet'
*schwarze Meerflotte 'Black Fleet of the Sea'

Sometimes malapropisms like the last one above do happen. Over on
de.etc.sprache.deutsch, the name for this class of error, after a
striking example, is

vierstöckiger Hausbesitzer 'four-story owner of a home'

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:38:57 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 16 May 2023 10:25:59 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:32:38?AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:53:01?PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

> >> >> >Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
> >> >> >than vice versa.
> >> >> English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.
> >> > She claims falsely that e.g. "bedroom furniture" is a three-word compound
> >> > (I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
> >> > to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
> >> > at least) and derivational morphology.
> >> > It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.
> >> > I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is just as much a
> >> > single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
> >> > example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."
> >> cf "Jungfrau" vs "junge Frau"?
> >A mountain vs. a pair of molehills?
>
> Jonkvrouw in Dutch is a rank in nobility.

The end of the line, presumably. It means 'virgin'.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Hence my comparison with Chomsky, whose followers tried to squeeze
every language into the English model.

If you use different teapots for different kinds of tea, say, you can't
say "blacktea pot" and "greentea pot" (where the absence of the space
is to get you to pronounce them like "blackbird" and "ice cream." In order
to distinguish them from teapots of a certain color, you could write them
as "black-tea pot" and "green-tea pot," but that doesn't affect the pronunciation
or the word-status of "black," "green," and "tea."

Compare "blackbird nest" and "bluebird nest" (I don't know of a greenbird)
with ?"black bird nest," which would be "black bird's nest."

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-15, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

> All Germanic languages can make such multi-element compounds, but in
> English their use is promoted by the spelling habit of using spaces
> between them. Too long compounds often make technical English quite
> unclear, worsened by the fact that stress is not written, and that
> verbs and nouns etc. often have the same form. Stress often
> disambiguates overlong compounds.

I just ran across this monster in the wild. Whatever it is. Not a
compound, I guess.

| Prigozhin had been recently publicizing his cooperation with
| former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics-turned-Wagner-
| Group-deputy-commander Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev, and it
| is possible that Prigozhin may be attempting to promote Mizintsev
| as a replacement for Shoigu.
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-17-2023

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:32:31 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2023-05-15, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

> > All Germanic languages can make such multi-element compounds, but in
> > English their use is promoted by the spelling habit of using spaces
> > between them. Too long compounds often make technical English quite
> > unclear, worsened by the fact that stress is not written, and that
> > verbs and nouns etc. often have the same form. Stress often
> > disambiguates overlong compounds.
>
> I just ran across this monster in the wild. Whatever it is. Not a
> compound, I guess.
>
> | Prigozhin had been recently publicizing his cooperation with
> | former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics-turned-Wagner-
> | Group-deputy-commander Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev, and it
> | is possible that Prigozhin may be attempting to promote Mizintsev
> | as a replacement for Shoigu.

The hyphens are a bit much. I suspect the author assumes the reader
knows M.'s backstory and didn't want to use up what space had been
allocated with explaining it in two or three sentences.

Nonetheless it's perfectly clear.

And perhaps not by a native speaker -- should be "had recently been
publishing." (I don't know whether misplacing an adverb in a string
of auxiliaries is typical of any-particular-speakers.

> https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-17-2023

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 18 May 2023 06:36:00 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:32:31?AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2023-05-15, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
>> > All Germanic languages can make such multi-element compounds, but in
>> > English their use is promoted by the spelling habit of using spaces
>> > between them. Too long compounds often make technical English quite
>> > unclear, worsened by the fact that stress is not written, and that
>> > verbs and nouns etc. often have the same form. Stress often
>> > disambiguates overlong compounds.
>>
>> I just ran across this monster in the wild. Whatever it is. Not a
>> compound, I guess.
>>
>> | Prigozhin had been recently publicizing his cooperation with
>> | former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics-turned-Wagner-
>> | Group-deputy-commander Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev, and it
>> | is possible that Prigozhin may be attempting to promote Mizintsev
>> | as a replacement for Shoigu.
>
>The hyphens are a bit much. I suspect the author assumes the reader
>knows M.'s backstory and didn't want to use up what space had been
>allocated with explaining it in two or three sentences.
>
>Nonetheless it's perfectly clear.

It is. Except that I'm not sure what this Colonel General Mikhail
Mizintsev has been doing, and when, with Defense and Logistics? Or
both? Shouldn't it be Logistics for Defense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Mizintsev
"He most recently served as the deputy minister of defence of Russia
for logistics".
Clearer, although literally the same. Or in other words: now I
understand. There are several Deputy Minister, each of whom
specialises in some imprtant aspect of warfare.

>And perhaps not by a native speaker -- should be "had recently been
>publishing." (I don't know whether misplacing an adverb in a string
>of auxiliaries is typical of any-particular-speakers.

The word order as written would be perfectly OK in German and Dutch,
except that we don't use such "been doing" structures.

Prigozhin had recent zijn samenwerking gepubliceerd met ...


>> https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-17-2023

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-18, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> | Prigozhin had been recently publicizing his cooperation with
>> | former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics-turned-Wagner-
>> | Group-deputy-commander Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev, and it
>> | is possible that Prigozhin may be attempting to promote Mizintsev
>> | as a replacement for Shoigu.
>

> Nonetheless it's perfectly clear.

There are a number of syntactic ambiguities here...

* What does "former" modify?
* What is the lefthand side of "turned"?
* "defense for logistics"?

... but drawing on common knowledge, it can be disambiguated:

former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics

turned
Wagner Group deputy commander

> And perhaps not by a native speaker -- should be "had recently been
> publishing."

That's a question of style, not grammar. You can find numerous
examples of "had been recently <past participle>" in, say, The New
York Times.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The Defense Department has divisions. M. was the deputy minister for
the logistics division. Perfectly clear.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Mizintsev
> "He most recently served as the deputy minister of defence of Russia
> for logistics".
> Clearer, although literally the same. Or in other words: now I
> understand. There are several Deputy Minister, each of whom
> specialises in some imprtant aspect of warfare.

Duh.

> >And perhaps not by a native speaker -- should be "had recently been
> >publishing." (I don't know whether misplacing an adverb in a string

> >of auxiliaries is typical of any-particular-speakers.)

>
> The word order as written would be perfectly OK in German and Dutch,
> except that we don't use such "been doing" structures.

Then rather than perfectly OK, it's impossible.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:30:08 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2023-05-18, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> | Prigozhin had been recently publicizing his cooperation with
> >> | former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics-turned-Wagner-
> >> | Group-deputy-commander Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev, and it
> >> | is possible that Prigozhin may be attempting to promote Mizintsev
> >> | as a replacement for Shoigu.
> >
> > Nonetheless it's perfectly clear.
> There are a number of syntactic ambiguities here...
>
> * What does "former" modify?

He used to be in the government, now he's in the Wagner.

> * What is the lefthand side of "turned"?

His former title. (I said the hyphens are strange,)

> * "defense for logistics"?

deputy minister of defense, for logistics

> ... but drawing on common knowledge, it can be disambiguated:
> former Russian Deputy Minister of Defense for Logistics
> turned
> Wagner Group deputy commander
>
> > And perhaps not by a native speaker -- should be "had recently been
> > publishing."
>
> That's a question of style, not grammar. You can find numerous
> examples of "had been recently <past participle>" in, say, The New
> York Times.

I doubt that. No one has to teach a child where to put the adverb,
it just comes with acquiring the language -- it's grammar..

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-05-16, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> Tue, 16 May 2023 15:28:35 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> scribeva:

>
>>On 2023-05-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>

>>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:53:01?PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> >Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
>>>> >than vice versa.
>>>> English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.
>>>
>>> She claims falsely that e.g. "bedroom furniture" is a three-word compound
>>> (I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
>>> to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
>>> at least) and derivational morphology.
>>>
>>> It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is lust as much a
>>> single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
>>> example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."
>>
>>cf "Jungfrau" vs "junge Frau"?
>

> Yes. And Großstadt vs. die große Stadt.
>
> Dutch: FIJNstof (tiny particles from diesel engines etc., that can

"particulates" or (in some contexts) "fines"

> harm people’s health) vs. fijn STOF: dust that contains relatively
> fine particles.
>
> German, Dutch and English really work exactly the same in this kind of
> thing.

I agree: the difference is mainly orthographic (use of spaces).


--
A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in
when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an
asshole. ---Frank Zappa

[Adam Funk]

On 2023-05-16, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> Tue, 16 May 2023 06:57:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>
>>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:53:01?PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Mon, 15 May 2023 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> >Here's an analysis that pretends English is German rather
>>> >than vice versa.
>>> English is Germanic (not German) where compounding is concerned, yes.
>>
>>She claims falsely that e.g. "bedroom furniture" is a three-word compound
>

> But it is! The Dutch equivalent would be slaapkamermeubilair.
> Slaapkamer, slaap, kamer, meubilair are all words that can be used by
> themselves too. Just like bed, bedroom, room and furniture in English.
>
> The only difference is in spelling conventions. Stress patterns and
> word order for compounda are exactly the same in all three Germanic
> languages that I know, and probably in Scandinavian, Yiddish and
> Swiss-German too. Gothic, anyone?
>
> I do see your point though: bedroom / slaapkamer are very common
> compounds, so are words in their own right, and "bedroom furniture" is
> much less common, perhaps even especially coined for the occasion. But
> using an active mechanism that the language offers.

I once asked elsewhere whether native speakers of German thought
"Holzeisenbahn" (wooden toy train set) sounded strange because of the
discrepancy in materials, and was told that "Eisenbahn" is such a
commonly known and now tightly bound compound word that the
discrepancy isn't noticed.

I guess "bedroom" is also a tightly bound compound in English.

>>(I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
>>to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
>>at least)
>

> If you say so. I however certainly don't:
> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/stadhuis.htm, about Dutch words, common
> and less common, for town hall, city hall, etc., where one has a
> deviating stress pattern.

>
>>and derivational morphology.
>>
>>It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.
>

> One word in German and Dutch, two in English. Just a matter of
> spelling, but nothing to do with grammar.

>
>>I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is lust as much a
>>single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
>>example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."
>

> BLACKbird vs. black BIRD. Different stress.
> I can’t compare this to Dutch, the bird is called "merel" in Dutch.
> But "zwarte VOgel" has the same stress pattern as in English.
>
> An example where it does work: WITboek, vs. "een wit BOEK". Same with
> zwartboek.
>


--
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Verity Stob)

[Adam Funk]

I can see why that's funny.


--
Ambassador Trentino: "I am willing to do anything to prevent this
war."
President Firefly: "It's too late. I've already paid a month's
rent on the battlefield." _Duck Soup_

[Ruud Harmsen]

>On 2023-05-16, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> I do see your point though: bedroom / slaapkamer are very common
>> compounds, so are words in their own right, and "bedroom furniture" is
>> much less common, perhaps even especially coined for the occasion. But
>> using an active mechanism that the language offers.

Fri, 19 May 2023 11:12:40 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
scribeva:

>I once asked elsewhere whether native speakers of German thought
>"Holzeisenbahn" (wooden toy train set) sounded strange because of the
>discrepancy in materials, and was told that "Eisenbahn" is such a
>commonly known and now tightly bound compound word that the
>discrepancy isn't noticed.

Nice one. I wouldn't have noticed either.

>I guess "bedroom" is also a tightly bound compound in English.

I think so too.

[Peter T. Daniels]

As I've already said (twice, at least), "wordhood" has nothing to do with
whether a space is written. In all these examples, the stress tells you
all you need to know. If Dutch works differently, that's its problem.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 19 May 2023 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 6:15:07?AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> I once asked elsewhere whether native speakers of German thought
>> "Holzeisenbahn" (wooden toy train set) sounded strange because of the
>> discrepancy in materials, and was told that "Eisenbahn" is such a
>> commonly known and now tightly bound compound word that the
>> discrepancy isn't noticed.
>>
>> I guess "bedroom" is also a tightly bound compound in English.
>
>As I've already said (twice, at least), "wordhood" has nothing to do with
>whether a space is written. In all these examples, the stress tells you
>all you need to know.

It doesn’t. Many words that are compounds stresswise written with a
space in English. Some are not. Dutch and German are consistent in
this: always without. (Except in English-influenced Dutch by people
with poor formal language education, who often write too many spaces.

>> If Dutch works differently, that's its problem.

It does not. The compounding rules, including word order and stress
patterns, are exactly alike in English, Dutch and German. It's just
that English deviate in writing more spaces.

You don't see that clearly because you see everything through the
filter of English spelling.

Is it web site or website? Webmaster or web master? Webhosting,
webserver, webserversoftware, webserversoftwareupdate? What are the
rules? For English, there aren't any. Just some conventions, that
aren't adhered to consistently.

[Adam Funk]

I said "bedroom" was tightly bound not because it lacks a space but
because (like "eisenbahn") people have stopped thinking of it in terms
of its constituents.

>> >>(I didn't look again to find an example she uses). To make such a claim is
>> >>to ignore stress patterns (which Chomskyans have been doing for 40 years
>> >>at least)
>> >
>> > If you say so. I however certainly don't:
>> > https://rudhar.com/fonetics/stadhuis.htm, about Dutch words, common
>> > and less common, for town hall, city hall, etc., where one has a
>> > deviating stress pattern.
>> >
>> >>and derivational morphology.
>> >>
>> >>It may be three words in German, but it isn't in English.
>> >
>> > One word in German and Dutch, two in English. Just a matter of
>> > spelling, but nothing to do with grammar.
>> >
>> >>I don't think anyone would try to deny that "ice cream" is lust as much a
>> >>single word (despite the written space) as "bedroom" is, and the standard
>> >>example has always been "blackbird" vs. "black bird."
>> >
>> > BLACKbird vs. black BIRD. Different stress.
>> > I can’t compare this to Dutch, the bird is called "merel" in Dutch.
>> > But "zwarte VOgel" has the same stress pattern as in English.
>> >
>> > An example where it does work: WITboek, vs. "een wit BOEK". Same with
>> > zwartboek.

--
Well, I sort of don’t trust anybody who doesn’t like
Led Zeppelin. (Jack White)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 19 May 2023 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 6:15:07?AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> >> I once asked elsewhere whether native speakers of German thought
> >> "Holzeisenbahn" (wooden toy train set) sounded strange because of the
> >> discrepancy in materials, and was told that "Eisenbahn" is such a
> >> commonly known and now tightly bound compound word that the
> >> discrepancy isn't noticed.
> >> I guess "bedroom" is also a tightly bound compound in English.
> >As I've already said (twice, at least), "wordhood" has nothing to do with
> >whether a space is written. In all these examples, the stress tells you
> >all you need to know.

"Ice cream" is a word

> It doesn’t. Many words that are compounds stresswise written with a
> space in English. Some are not. Dutch and German are consistent in
> this: always without. (Except in English-influenced Dutch by people
> with poor formal language education, who often write too many spaces.

So what? English develops organically, without some authoritarian
central authority trying to control it.

> >> If Dutch works differently, that's its problem.
> It does not. The compounding rules, including word order and stress
> patterns, are exactly alike in English, Dutch and German. It's just
> that English deviate in writing more spaces.
>
> You don't see that clearly because you see everything through the
> filter of English spelling.
>
> Is it web site or website? Webmaster or web master? Webhosting,
> webserver, webserversoftware, webserversoftwareupdate? What are the
> rules? For English, there aren't any. Just some conventions, that
> aren't adhered to consistently.

What does it matter? Who cares? Just be consistent.

[wugi]

Op 16/05/2023 om 20:37 schreef Ruud Harmsen:

> In Dutch, jongeman and "jonge man" have the same stress, but different
> meaning and usage.
>

Not to me:
een jongemAn vs
een jOnge mAn (both stresses at different levels, but neither unstressed).

Stress in the (adjectival) compound is somewhat unpredictable* though:

jongemAn, jongedAme, de oudlEErling; vs.
de grOOtstad, het klEInkind en de grOOtouders, de blAUWziekte;

but always different than with 'pure' adjectives, see before.

I take it English functions similarly, sometimes, eg a greenhouse and a
green house.

*Same in substantival compounds:
het stadhUIs, de burgemEEster (I had to learn these, my intuition says
stAdhuis, bUrgemeester), vs.
het stAdspark, de bUrgervader.

--
guido wugi

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 26 May 2023 21:27:15 +0200: wugi <wu...@brol.invalid> scribeva:

>*Same in substantival compounds:
>het stadhUIs, de burgemEEster (I had to learn these, my intuition says
>stAdhuis, bUrgemeester), vs.
>het stAdspark, de bUrgervader.

The circle is round: https://rudhar.com/fonetics/stadhuis.htm