<p>合 - join (v)/ joined (adj)</p>
<p>同 - together (adv)</p>
<p>合同 - joined (adj) -- 合 is the adjective and 同 is the adverb in 合同 (adj)</p>
<p>The reason for 合同 to become the noun 'contract':</p>
<p>合同 is an abbreviated form of 合同書 (joined document)</p>
<p>合同書(n) --&gt; 合同(n) = contract</p>
<p>Similarly: 備忘錄(n) --&gt; 備忘(n) = memorandum</p>
<p>Also:</p>
<p>合同 = 合約 (joined convention) = contract</p>
<p>Examples of 合同/ 合約 (n) as an adjective:</p>
<p>合約員工 / 合同工 = contractual employee</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T19:58:51.880Z
Of course! So 书 is the head, but it is abbreviated out of the commonly used phrase.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T17:42:14.213Z
2022-04-12T18:05:19.783Z
2022-04-12T18:05:19.783Z
Tang Ho
<p>Don't you think &quot;morphological breakdown&quot; as you call it, will depend on the meaning you wish to impart in the given the context and is not written in stone?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Humpty Dumpty told Alice, &quot;When I use a word, it means just what I
choose it to mean – neither more nor less.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(That's why the OED needs about 60000 words to define the simple word &quot;set&quot;. Humpty Dumpty's fault!)</p>
<p>Other possible meanings:</p>
<p>合同：会合、会同<br />
《红楼梦．第五五回》：「李纨是个尚德不尚才的，未免逞纵了下人，王夫人便命探春合同李纨裁处。」<br />
合同：齐心协力<br />
合同：相同</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-18T12:57:44.447Z
Of course! Words can have multiple meanings, and they can shift from one usage (noun) to another usage (verb). This what we do in English when we say "I will kuaidi it to you". Or "I will FedEx it to you". But still, there are patterns for what *tends* to happen. It is not so common for an adjective to be used as a noun. Tangho has answered the question: 合同 is not an adjective but rather an abbreviated noun: 合同书. As for the other usages that you listed, two are verbs and one is an adjective. It makes sense for 合同 to be an adjective. It's also quite common for adjectives to be used as verbs.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-18T21:32:39.627Z
Well, as usual, I would not agree. 合同书 is a piece of paper, signed by the parties to the contract. Like paper money, it is all but worthless. Burn it if you like! The value lies in the belief of the validity and the laws, made by man, and written on paper, which concern contracts. The actual contract, 合同， is the agreement between the parties involved, not the piece of paper. I would not advise assuming Chinese just leaves out 书 for no good reason. 合同 is the name of an agreement.
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T23:47:09.653Z
2022-04-12T23:47:09.653Z
Pedroski
<p><strong>Updated:</strong></p>
<p>合 in here means &quot;combine&quot; (adv.) -  一起，共同.</p>
<p>同 is &quot;together/jointly&quot; (adv.) - 共同, 到一处.</p>
<p>合同 is a &quot;contract&quot;, or &quot;contractual agreement&quot; (noun) - 合同；合约；契约.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T17:21:14.090Z
Thanks, but this is just the dictionary definitions and doesn't answer my question. It is morphologically odd for an verb-adj compound to produce a noun. Which is the head, and which is the complement? Can you think of other examples of an verb-adj producing a noun?
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T18:01:41.800Z
I don't understand what the term "head" means, is that simply mean "leading word" in a compound noun? I am not very good at grammar, but isn't "v + **adv**" a quite common combination?
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T18:58:13.350Z
From wiki - "An adverb is a word or an expression that **modifies** a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner, clause, preposition, or sentence. Adverbs typically express manner, place, time, frequency, degree, level of certainty, etc., "
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T20:01:46.253Z
The head is the part of a phrase whose part of speech defines the part of speech of the phrase. So the head of a noun-phrase must be a noun, which is why I was confused as to which part of 合同 gave it its noun-iness, as neither 合 nor 同 are nouns. Tangho has answered the question though.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T20:45:14.887Z
Sorry, I disagree that 合同 is an adjective - "這份合同(contract, a noun)詳細的列明出了...", "從法律角度來看,那個合約(contract agreement, a noun)是無效的".
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T21:40:31.497Z
"**合**", 【副】 (adv.): 一起，共同 [together]。如:合吃;合住;合堂(同处一堂);合约(一同订约). https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E5%90%88 "**同**" 【副】(adv.):共同。到一处〖together;jointly〗http://xh.5156edu.com/html3/5393.html
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-18T12:53:05.170Z
Of course I'm not saying that 合同 is an adjective. That's why I asked the question in the first place: If 合 and 同 are both adjectives, how could they come together to form a noun? Tangho has solved the mystery, if you are interested you can read his answer.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T16:19:59.133Z
2022-04-12T21:45:32.810Z
2022-04-12T21:45:32.810Z
r13
<p>Which of the two morphemes is the head and which is the complement? Can it be considered a VP with a verb and its result complement (namely: to join together resulting in sameness) which has become a noun in usage?</p>

<etymology><morphology>
What's the morphological breakdown of 合同？
# What's the morphological breakdown of 合同？

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-12)

Which of the two morphemes is the head and which is the complement? Can it be considered a VP with a verb and its result complement (namely: to join together resulting in sameness) which has become a noun in usage?

**Tags:** etymology, morphology


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-04-12. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

合 - join (v)/ joined (adj)

同 - together (adv)

合同 - joined (adj) -- 合 is the adjective and 同 is the adverb in 合同 (adj)

The reason for 合同 to become the noun 'contract':

合同 is an abbreviated form of 合同書 (joined document)

合同書(n) --> 合同(n) = contract

Similarly: 備忘錄(n) --> 備忘(n) = memorandum

Also:

合同 = 合約 (joined convention) = contract

Examples of 合同/ 合約 (n) as an adjective:

合約員工 / 合同工 = contractual employee

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Of course! So 书 is the head, but it is abbreviated out of the commonly used phrase.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-04-12. Score: 0

Don't you think "morphological breakdown" as you call it, will depend on the meaning you wish to impart in the given the context and is not written in stone?

> Humpty Dumpty told Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I
> choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

(That's why the OED needs about 60000 words to define the simple word "set". Humpty Dumpty's fault!)

Other possible meanings:

合同：会合、会同  
《红楼梦．第五五回》：「李纨是个尚德不尚才的，未免逞纵了下人，王夫人便命探春合同李纨裁处。」  
合同：齐心协力  
合同：相同

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Of course! Words can have multiple meanings, and they can shift from one usage (noun) to another usage (verb). This what we do in English when we say "I will kuaidi it to you". Or "I will FedEx it to you". But still, there are patterns for what *tends* to happen. It is not so common for an adjective to be used as a noun. Tangho has answered the question: 合同 is not an adjective but rather an abbreviated noun: 合同书. As for the other usages that you listed, two are verbs and one is an adjective. It makes sense for 合同 to be an adjective. It's also quite common for adjectives to be used as verbs.  
> **username_2**: Well, as usual, I would not agree. 合同书 is a piece of paper, signed by the parties to the contract. Like paper money, it is all but worthless. Burn it if you like! The value lies in the belief of the validity and the laws, made by man, and written on paper, which concern contracts. The actual contract, 合同， is the agreement between the parties involved, not the piece of paper. I would not advise assuming Chinese just leaves out 书 for no good reason. 合同 is the name of an agreement.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-04-12. Score: -1

**Updated:**

合 in here means "combine" (adv.) - 一起，共同.

同 is "together/jointly" (adv.) - 共同, 到一处.

合同 is a "contract", or "contractual agreement" (noun) - 合同；合约；契约.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, but this is just the dictionary definitions and doesn't answer my question. It is morphologically odd for an verb-adj compound to produce a noun. Which is the head, and which is the complement? Can you think of other examples of an verb-adj producing a noun?  
> **username_3**: I don't understand what the term "head" means, is that simply mean "leading word" in a compound noun? I am not very good at grammar, but isn't "v + **adv**" a quite common combination?  
> **username_3**: From wiki - "An adverb is a word or an expression that **modifies** a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner, clause, preposition, or sentence. Adverbs typically express manner, place, time, frequency, degree, level of certainty, etc., "  
> **username_0**: The head is the part of a phrase whose part of speech defines the part of speech of the phrase. So the head of a noun-phrase must be a noun, which is why I was confused as to which part of 合同 gave it its noun-iness, as neither 合 nor 同 are nouns. Tangho has answered the question though.  
> **username_3**: Sorry, I disagree that 合同 is an adjective - "這份合同(contract, a noun)詳細的列明出了...", "從法律角度來看,那個合約(contract agreement, a noun)是無效的".  
> **username_3**: "**合**", 【副】 (adv.): 一起，共同 [together]。如:合吃;合住;合堂(同处一堂);合约(一同订约). https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E5%90%88 "**同**" 【副】(adv.):共同。到一处〖together;jointly〗http://xh.5156edu.com/html3/5393.html  
> **username_0**: Of course I'm not saying that 合同 is an adjective. That's why I asked the question in the first place: If 合 and 同 are both adjectives, how could they come together to form a noun? Tangho has solved the mystery, if you are interested you can read his answer.  

---

