3 ms·
In my work on grammatically sophisticated natural language parsing, I thought about this pattern extensively. The basic observation is true: English allows you
by d_burfoot 7y ago
In my work on grammatically sophisticated natural language parsing, I thought about this pattern extensively.
The basic observation is true: English allows you to stack nouns on top of one another, apparently without limit.
However, you're not really allowed to do this in any way you please. The almost-required interpretation is type specification: when you refer to N1 N2, you almost always means an N2 of type N1. So a "police officer" is an officer of type "police". An "oak tree" is a tree of type "oak".
I disagree with the grammaticality of some of the author's examples, and also some of his claims about the flexibility of the pattern. The type specification is almost always singular, and I've never seen punctuation included in the pattern. So "thrones game" should really be "throne game", and "night darkness, storminess" is not grammatical to me.
Interestingly, other languages do not permit this pattern, and so objects that can be expressed succinctly using the pattern in English become unwieldy in translation. In subways you sometimes a sign for "Passenger Emergency Intercom System" which is translated as something like "Sistema de comunicación para pasajeros en caso de emergencia" in Spanish.
- oever 7y agoGerman and dutch have the same pattern but without the whitespace. Hottentottententententoonstellingstenten.
- lonelappde 7y agoWhy isn't the police office a police of type officer? When he gets promoted to police seargant or police commissioner, he changes what type of police he is.
- ggggtez 7y agoBecause adjectives come before nouns. The first word is almost always is a descriptor of the second word. A "pig flier" is clearly something that flies pigs, not a type of pig that flies.
- ggggtez 7y agoConsider also: Water commissioner. Is it sentient water that got a job? No it's obviously s normal person specializing in water.
- tobr 7y agoA police of type officer would be an officer police, though just like a riot police isn’t a riot, but rather works with riots, an officer police wouldn’t necessarily be an officer.
- ggggtez 7y agoAgreed, the authors personal ability to make the phrases was not quite right. They also confuse the ability to have these attacked nouns, with the idea that they are equivalent to other sentences in meaning. I think it becomes clear things like It was a dark and stormy night Night darkness, storminess Loses the context of what or when was dark and stormy.