I cant help but recall a 2015 Peter Theil interview with Tyler Cowen [1] where he talked about the black magic predictive power of company names. Hard to unsee a company called "ever bigger" getting overextended.
That is two words or a phrase. Also, it is understood to refer to the names of people and not all countries are known to be liberal as some in the legal equality of incorporated entities - maybe alethonym or an orthonym. More practically, in the US the SEC could take the initiative and at least extend https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/lizarraga-statement-names... to some of the absurd ticker names especially given the desire to focus on humorless freeway postings.
Since we're at "quoting wikipedia" levels of pedantry, may I point out that your article calls this a "Compound" not a "Compound word". And the statement "group of words that is not a compound is a phrase" requires that there exists a "group of words that is a compound". "If they are joined with a space (e.g. school bus, high school, lowest common denominator), then the result – at least in English[1] – may be an open compound." Here, the word "they" refers to "words", and the article does not say that such a group of words is an "open compound word".
So that is two words, that together form a Compound.
More explicitly, from the definition for "Word" [1]: "For example, ice cream, air raid shelter and get up each are generally considered to consist of more than one word (as each of the components are free forms, with the possible exception of get), and so is no one, but the similarly compounded someone and nobody are considered single words."
It’s an open compound word composed of individual words that aren’t used singularly, in that the meaning is changed if they are interpreted individually or singly. This isn’t an adjective phrase in this case. I don’t know who you’re trying to convince but the person I responded to is simply mistaken or ignorant of compound words and how they are used, interpreted, or referred to. The fact that open compound words are made up of parts that would be multiple words if used in a different context doesn’t change the facts of my original statement, but I do appreciate you taking the time to elucidate the point further. Nothing you have written here contradicts anything I wrote. Open compound words are considered single words lexically because the entire compound word fulfills the role of a single part of speech in a given sentence.
We are now up to three wikipedia links and in none of those documents is the phrase "open compound word" used. An "open compound" is a group of distinct words. A "compound word" is a compound made of two more words that have been joined together to make a single word. There is no such thing as an "open compound word".
The person you responded to wrote "That is two words or a phrase". You replied "In a word: no. Specifically, it’s a compound word (singular)."
In this, the evidence you yourself have provided says you are incorrect. "nominative determinism", if it is a compound at all, is an "open compound", not a "compound word". It is an "open compound", and as such is made up of two words. The person you are refuting is correct. You are correct in identifying it as an open compound. You are incorrect in claiming that it is a single word.
The use of ad hominen discredits claims and turns off readers. Nominative determinism is not a compound word as compounds are formed by combining free morphemes and the suffix -ive is bound.
It’s not an ad hominem to suggest that someone is wrong or mistaken about a point of fact when that’s the context of the discussion.
Determinism is a distinct concept, and while related to nominative determinism, in the sentence I used, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the word nominative is an adjective modifying determinism because nominative determinism is itself a distinct concept that functions singly as an appositive after an independent clause and a colon.
I’ll admit that you are free to disagree on this point or any other I have made, and I wouldn’t consider you wrong to do so. My remarks regarding what you posted in response another person in the thread were meant to contrast our views on this matter. Clearly, it’s implied that these are my views, and it’s okay to be wrong, and I’ll admit that I may be considered wrong myself by you, but to say so isn’t an ad hominem because we were both making truth claims with the unstated assumption that we each believe ourselves to be right. It’s not an insult or claim for/against you personally or regarding your character. It’s just how I view your claims on this topic as evidenced by your comments.
It just seems needlessly pedantic to derail an entire thread to call someone out for supposedly miscounting words when it’s literally beside the point I was making, but I respect your difference of opinion.
With very few exceptions, English compound words are stressed on their first component stem; yet, stress appears both on the first syllable of NOM-uh-nuh-tiv and the dih-TUR verb portion.
Yes, an open compound word, not two words in this technical context. Not a phrase, per se, which seems odd to me also, but in this linguistic context, words, uh, have meaning. /s
From the Wikipedia link I posted above, especially the last quoted line:
> Compounding occurs when two or more words or signs are joined to make a longer word or sign. If the joining of the words or signs is orthographically represented with a hyphen, the result is a hyphenated compound (e.g., must-have, hunter-gatherer). If they are joined without an intervening space, it is a closed compound (e.g., footpath, blackbird). If they are joined with a space (e.g. school bus, high school, lowest common denominator), then the result – at least in English – may be an open compound. A group of words that is not a compound is a phrase.
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/peter-thiel/