<p>If you need to make noun compounds distinct from groups of nouns together, there are a few different ways natural languages do it.</p>
<h3>Phonological changes</h3>
<p>Most phonological effects only happen within words, not between words. If vowel harmony happens between the two halves of a compound, for example, that clearly demonstrates that it's a compound.</p>
<h3>Morphological changes</h3>
<p>In many languages, nouns have some sort of morphology on them: case marking, for example. In a compound, this morphology might only be applied once, while in a group of nouns, it could be applied to every word. Alternately, you have explicit morphology for making a compound, like a morpheme that goes between the components.</p>
<h3>Prosodic changes</h3>
<p>Prosody tends to be different within a word than between words. You might say each word has exactly one ictus (accent location), for example, so a compound has one but a group of nouns has more.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-04T23:26:38.263Z
Which way is better do you think, to have `-ya-` or not to have it?
Lance Pollard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-03T03:51:45.777Z
2024-05-03T03:51:45.777Z
Draconis
<p>I was thinking of having all &quot;base&quot; words in the budding conlang I'm working on start and end with a consonant (and be 1-4 syllables), with 1 vowel between each consonant. So like <code>banakan</code> or <code>man</code> or <code>bud</code>. Then compound words are simply the joining together of those base words, creating consonant clusters: <code>manbanakan</code> or <code>budman</code>.</p>
<p>In the case that two of the same consonants appear at the join point, then an <code>s</code> or <code>z</code> is inserted (depending on if the previous consonant is voiced or not):</p>
<ul>
<li><code>gap</code></li>
<li><code>pul</code></li>
<li><code>gapspul</code></li>
</ul>
<p>In the case where two s's are together, insert an <code>l</code>:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>gas</code></li>
<li><code>sul</code></li>
<li><code>gaslsul</code></li>
</ul>
<p>But for most words, it's going to be the first case like <code>manbanakan</code>.</p>
<p>The question I have is based on this fact, all of my words are written separately by default (like an analytic language like Chinese). So say <code>man</code> means <code>mind</code> and <code>bud</code> means <code>awakened state</code>. Then <code>budman</code> means &quot;awakened mind&quot;. But <code>bud man</code> means &quot;awakened mind&quot; too, it's just that when you create a word for it, it's like in Sanskrit, it becomes more of a unit in your mind (<code>budman</code>), while the separate words is less of a unit and more of a &quot;descriptive phrase&quot; (<code>bud man</code>).</p>
<p>The problem is, when speaking, how can you tell the difference between <code>budman</code> and <code>bud man</code>? Is it possible to somehow tell the difference when speaking?</p>
<p>My other option is to have a &quot;joiner&quot; syllable, like <code>ya</code>, to make it unambiguous:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>bud man</code> (descriptive phrase)</li>
<li><code>budyaman</code> (one word unit)</li>
</ul>
<p>But that adds two characters/glyphs, and an extra syllable, which I'd like to avoid if at all possible, to keep it closer to the brevity of a language like Sanskrit.</p>
<p>Imagine having 3 or 4 words joined together into a single unit:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>bud man banakan</code> (descriptive phrase)</li>
<li><code>budmanbanakan</code> (no separator, as unit)</li>
<li><code>budyamanyabanakan</code> (<code>ya</code> separator, as unit)</li>
</ul>
<p>One subjective call (comments please) is, how can I decide on which is better:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>budmanbanakan</code> (no separator, as unit)</li>
<li>or <code>budyamanyabanakan</code> (<code>ya</code> separator, as unit)</li>
</ul>
<p>The main question though is, if I went with the &quot;no separator, as unit&quot; version like <code>budmanbanakan</code>, how do I understand that as a unit when speaking, as opposed to saying <code>bud man banakan</code>?</p>
<p>When speaking, it's not like I put pauses between each word I say (for example, when speaking English), the words sort of blend together. I can't think of any English words which fit this pattern, maybe &quot;doorbell&quot; or &quot;doorstep&quot;, vs. &quot;door bell&quot;, etc.. Can you tell the difference?</p>
<p>Maybe I add <em>stress</em> on the last syllable, <code>budmanbanakán</code>, vs. having each word get its own stress like <code>búd mán banakán</code>, but even then I can't quite tell the difference.</p>
<p>So maybe adding the <code>-ya-</code> separator isn't that big a deal in the end, given my desire to create lots of compound words. I can't decide yet.</p>
<p>Maybe German or other languages can offer some insight here, when they create compound words, do they run into this problem? I know for Sanskrit at least, they have sandhi, meaning the join point often changes. I don't want to do that, I want to have no changes at the join point. But not sure how I can get away with that yet, when speaking.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-03T07:11:52.320Z
You could just leave it ambiguous. Languages are not usually very precise anyway, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. It would also provide a nice way for future diachronic language changes.
Oliver Mason
<vocabulary><compounding>
Problems with this system for compound words?
# Problems with this system for compound words?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-05-01)

I was thinking of having all "base" words in the budding conlang I'm working on start and end with a consonant (and be 1-4 syllables), with 1 vowel between each consonant. So like `banakan` or `man` or `bud`. Then compound words are simply the joining together of those base words, creating consonant clusters: `manbanakan` or `budman`.

In the case that two of the same consonants appear at the join point, then an `s` or `z` is inserted (depending on if the previous consonant is voiced or not):

* `gap`
* `pul`
* `gapspul`

In the case where two s's are together, insert an `l`:

* `gas`
* `sul`
* `gaslsul`

But for most words, it's going to be the first case like `manbanakan`.

The question I have is based on this fact, all of my words are written separately by default (like an analytic language like Chinese). So say `man` means `mind` and `bud` means `awakened state`. Then `budman` means "awakened mind". But `bud man` means "awakened mind" too, it's just that when you create a word for it, it's like in Sanskrit, it becomes more of a unit in your mind (`budman`), while the separate words is less of a unit and more of a "descriptive phrase" (`bud man`).

The problem is, when speaking, how can you tell the difference between `budman` and `bud man`? Is it possible to somehow tell the difference when speaking?

My other option is to have a "joiner" syllable, like `ya`, to make it unambiguous:

* `bud man` (descriptive phrase)
* `budyaman` (one word unit)

But that adds two characters/glyphs, and an extra syllable, which I'd like to avoid if at all possible, to keep it closer to the brevity of a language like Sanskrit.

Imagine having 3 or 4 words joined together into a single unit:

* `bud man banakan` (descriptive phrase)
* `budmanbanakan` (no separator, as unit)
* `budyamanyabanakan` (`ya` separator, as unit)

One subjective call (comments please) is, how can I decide on which is better:

* `budmanbanakan` (no separator, as unit)
* or `budyamanyabanakan` (`ya` separator, as unit)

The main question though is, if I went with the "no separator, as unit" version like `budmanbanakan`, how do I understand that as a unit when speaking, as opposed to saying `bud man banakan`?

When speaking, it's not like I put pauses between each word I say (for example, when speaking English), the words sort of blend together. I can't think of any English words which fit this pattern, maybe "doorbell" or "doorstep", vs. "door bell", etc.. Can you tell the difference?

Maybe I add *stress* on the last syllable, `budmanbanakán`, vs. having each word get its own stress like `búd mán banakán`, but even then I can't quite tell the difference.

So maybe adding the `-ya-` separator isn't that big a deal in the end, given my desire to create lots of compound words. I can't decide yet.

Maybe German or other languages can offer some insight here, when they create compound words, do they run into this problem? I know for Sanskrit at least, they have sandhi, meaning the join point often changes. I don't want to do that, I want to have no changes at the join point. But not sure how I can get away with that yet, when speaking.

**Tags:** vocabulary, compounding

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You could just leave it ambiguous. Languages are not usually very precise anyway, so that doesn't seem to be a problem. It would also provide a nice way for future diachronic language changes.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-05-03. Score: 3

If you need to make noun compounds distinct from groups of nouns together, there are a few different ways natural languages do it.

### Phonological changes

Most phonological effects only happen within words, not between words. If vowel harmony happens between the two halves of a compound, for example, that clearly demonstrates that it's a compound.

### Morphological changes

In many languages, nouns have some sort of morphology on them: case marking, for example. In a compound, this morphology might only be applied once, while in a group of nouns, it could be applied to every word. Alternately, you have explicit morphology for making a compound, like a morpheme that goes between the components.

### Prosodic changes

Prosody tends to be different within a word than between words. You might say each word has exactly one ictus (accent location), for example, so a compound has one but a group of nouns has more.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Which way is better do you think, to have `-ya-` or not to have it?  

---

