Skip to main content

The flying purple-people-eater, and other compound words



What’s wrong with the following sentence: I saw a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple-babies-eater? It sounds off doesn’t it? If you have heard the song I am referencing I’m sure you would quickly correct me—it’s a purple-people-eater not a purple-babies-eater. But even if you hadn’t heard the song you would probably say, don’t you mean a flying purple-baby-eater?

The error our ears hear in the sentence is built into the way we use language. Steven Pinker explains this word quirk in his book The Language Instinct with a theory of word structure and mental storage. He notes that the noun in a compound word, such as people in purple-people-eater, must be a stem. A stem is the simplest unit of a word that can be manipulated into different parts of speech when certain rules are applied to it. Book would be the stem of books, table the stem of tables, and owl the stem of owls. What do these stems have in common? They are all regular nouns in the sense that forming each of their plurals follows a simple rule—add an s. 

We all know about irregular nouns then. The plural forms of irregular nouns can’t be predicted by a rule like add an s. Here are just a few examples: calf-calves, foot-feet, and child-children. Just like when you were learning irregular verb conjugations in Spanish class, these irregular English plural forms must simply be memorized. Since by definition there is no rule for how to form irregular plurals, both foot and feet must be stored in our memories separately as two different concepts! The same is true for calf and calves, and goose and geese.
 
Steven Pinker would say that all four of these words, calf, calves, goose, geese, are stored in our mental rolodex as stems. Since compound words are only formed from stem words, plural forms of irregular nouns are available for compounding while plural forms of regular verbs are not. This explains why purple-people-eater sounds okay, but purple-babies-eater definitely does not. 

Whether or not word stems actually exist and are stored as little chunks of communicative units, this rule of compounding is quite fascinating. It leaves me asking questions like “Why do we have irregular plural nouns at all?” and “Why do we intuitively know that babies-eater is wrong while baby-eater is right?” Although Pinker’s word structure/storage theory doesn’t answer these questions, it is a nifty way to conceptualize one of the many quirks of the English language.

Check out the suggested further reading for an intriguing psychological study of compound word forming in children and to find more examples of irregular plural compounds. Or better yet, think of some for yourself and post them in the comments below!

Sources and further reading
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. Camberwell, VIC, Australia: Penguin Group.
 
Berent, I. & Pinker, S. (2007). The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint? The Mental Lexicon 2(2), pp 129-181: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AlphaFold2 Part 2: The ion channel challenge

Last month I wrote about the wonders and perils of the artificial intelligence program that predicts 3D protein structures, AlphaFold2. As an ion channel enthusiast , I naturally wanted to know how AlphaFold2 performs at predicting the structures of proteins embedded in cell membranes. When I search PubMed for articles that mention both "AlphaFold" and "ion channel" I only get 34 hits. This surprised me, given the hype and the general paranoia around AI replacing humanity. If we use these search results as a proxy for the state of the ion channel protein structure prediction field, I'd say the juice is still in the coconut. I wanted to know how well AF2 would do at predicting an ion channel protein structure, so I asked it to generate the structure of Kv2.1, a voltage-gated potassium ion channel that I studied during graduate school. Kv2.1 is a pretty important protein. It regulates neuron firing throughout the brain and body where it helps us learn new stuff, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Precision murder -- wait, no -- medicine

A non-zero amount of what we call ‘medicine’ could be described as just controlled cell murder.  This was my revelation after researching a new treatment for certain cardiac arrhythmias called Pulsed Electric Field Ablation, which I became interested in when my father-in-law asked me how it worked during our Christmas visit. “How can it kill the heart cells and leave the nerves and blood vessels intact?” I had no idea. I know next-to-nothing about medical treatments for cardiac patients, much less how this Pulsed Field Ablation technique could have fewer side effects than the standard-of-care ablation techniques. A quick Google search piqued my curiosity when I learned that PFA is also sometimes called “high frequency irreversible electroporation”. While less catchy, that name revealed a bit more about the mechanism of action behind PFA - electroporation - which happens to be something I actually do know something about. Electroporation refers to the formation of holes (pores) in c...
Post a Comment
Read more

iPSCs, the new model organism?

Induced pluripotent stem cells. The name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and it certainly doesn't conjure images of mice, fruit flies, monkeys, or any of the other classic model organisms used for basic biomedical research. These so called "model organisms" are just that; animals that help scientists model the way that the most promising human therapeutics in the collective pipeline will behave in humans. And now induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, are becoming an increasingly popular tool used for developing and testing novel drugs way before we expose any real human patients to them. The upside to using model organisms is pretty obvious -- we minimize exposure of humans to potentially unsafe molecules. The downsides are many, but one big one is that sometimes potential new drug molecules look really promising when they are given to a mouse with a human-like disease, but then that same molecule does nothing (or worse, is toxic!) when it goes into human clin...
Post a Comment
Read more