# Can two words together (yet separate) be a noun by itself? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 27, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549 "2009-04-27T20:34:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/21 "2009-04-28T20:26:24Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Here’s the trick: “Noun phrase” covers a number of different constructions, which have in common a noun at the heart of them: > [ul][li]“The duck” – simple noun with article[/li][li]The white duck" – noun modified by adjective[/li][li]“The farmer’s duck” – noun modified by possessive noun used adjectivally[/li][li]“The Peking duck” – noun modified by another noun functioning adjectivally[/li][li]“The cold duck” – presuming we’re speaking of an alcoholic beverage, not a frigid waterfowl, what we have here is a two-word unit carrying a meaning not discernible from its constituent parts. [/ul][/li] > Obviously the last case is something distinct from the previous four cases. It’s a noun, an identifying marker referencing some object (or concept, as in “homophobia”) which is comprised of more than one unit but which does not derive its meaning from the combination of its constituents’ meanings, as cases #2, #3, and #4 do. > > And that is the point at which “word”, in the common-usage/typographical meaning “sequence of letters with spaces fore and aft, unless punctuation precedes the aft space,” diverges from the analytical-grammar meaning of “unbound morpheme.” In such cases the meaning of the supposed phrase is not discernible from the constituent elements. I guess my issue is that, seemingly, “deep six” is not a noun phrase as described here. Neither word is a noun by itself for one thing. It seems they are saying those two words, used in that specific way, constitutes a noun (not a noun phrase). ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/22 "2009-04-28T20:33:03Z")
Many proper nouns qualify: _New Orleans_, _Prince Edward Island_, _Burkina Faso_, and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/23 "2009-04-28T20:56:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I guess my issue is that, seemingly, “deep six” is not a noun phrase as described here. > Neither word is a noun by itself for one thing. If the origin is the phrase “By the deep, six” (as suggested in post #9), then “deep” is a noun here. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/24 "2009-04-28T21:06:32Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > If the origin is the phrase “By the deep, six” (as suggested in post #9), then “deep” is a noun here. Well…not sure but that meaning for “deep six” seems in error as it is used here (although apparently people would say, “By the deep, six”). > [@](#): > > OED’s earliest cite is from a 1929 vocabulary of “underworld slang” > where it is said to mean “grave”. On the other hand, there is a > persistent association with the sea, and OED suggests it may be “from > the custom of burial at sea, at a depth of six fathoms”. (Is there a > rule that this is the minimum depth at which a sea burial can be > performed?) A 1927 NYTimes article on current nautical slang says that > to “give (someone) the deep six” is to throw them overboard. Elsewhere > the writer (George W.Bragdon) seems to use “the deep six” to mean the > sea in general. > > \ > > Thus one would yell out “Mark Twain” for 2 fathoms, but “Deep Six” for > 6 fathoms (actually for a depth between 6 and 7 fathoms). That is the > _literal_ nautical sense of the expression. However, I agree that > this depth seems too shallow for burial at sea. I think it is more > likely that “deep−sixing” someone or something originated in > underworld slang, based on the standard depth of the grave, and spread > to nautical slang by 1927, by chance coinciding with the depth− > announcement. > > SOURCE: [http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.lang/2007-07/msg00673.pdf](http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.lang/2007-07/msg00673.pdf) (PDF) ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/25 "2009-04-28T21:30:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think it is more likely that “deep−sixing” someone or something originated in underworld slang, based on the standard depth of the grave, and spread to nautical slang by 1927, by chance coinciding with the depth announcement. (I can’t quite tell if these are your words, or from the source you cite.) There can be little question that the nautical use of the phrase “deep six” long, long predates 1927. As you note, Samuel Clemens took his pen name from something closely related to this, and the same lead line had been in used for probably several hundred years at that point. So while the phrase might have originated independently (and with a related meaning) as 20th century slang, the chances of this seem low. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/26 "2009-04-28T21:42:30Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > (I can’t quite tell if these are your words, or from the source you cite.) > > There can be little question that the nautical use of the phrase “deep six” long, long predates 1927. As you note, Samuel Clemens took his pen name from something closely related to this, and the same lead line had been in used for probably several hundred years at that point. > > So while the phrase might have originated independently (and with a related meaning) as 20th century slang, the chances of this seem low. Was from the cite. And I see where you are coming from but I bow to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) on these things unless some compelling data comes from elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/27 "2009-04-29T08:10:44Z")
I’d say no, a noun cannot contain a space. However, there are situations in the English language where one noun clearly modifies the other, yet it is not an adjective, but all the same, the nouns clearly ‘belong together’. In other languages they’d be written as one word. Compare: immigration policy - immigratiebeleid [Dutch; beleid is policy]. Yet other languages would deal with ‘immigration’ in yet other ways: politique d’immigration (French: ‘policy of immigration’) imigrační politika (Czech immigration policy; here the noun ‘imigrace’ is turned into an adjective by adding -ní to it (and palatalizing the -c-)) ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/28 "2009-04-29T11:34:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Shouldn’t a “noun” such as that properly be hyphenated or a compound word to denote it is “one” thing? It may also be of interest to note that hyphenation, except when necessary to avoid confusion, is currently falling out of style. Words which are ‘properly hyphenated’ today may not be so tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/29 "2009-04-29T16:17:21Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > I’d say no, a noun cannot contain a space. However, there are situations in the English language where one noun clearly modifies the other, yet it is not an adjective, but all the same, the nouns clearly ‘belong together’. In other languages they’d be written as one word. Compare: > > immigration policy - immigratiebeleid [Dutch; beleid is policy]. To examine this we need to look at [Compound nouns](http://www.cybergrammar.co.uk/word_classes_nouns.php). > [@](#): > > Some compound nouns, however, remain as two words, but act syntactically as a single unit. This is particularly true of Proper nouns describing places or titles, such as the Albert Hall, Alton Towers, Great Windsor Park or the Education Secretary. Common nouns can be compound nouns, too, where two nouns are almost always used together eg parking meter; tree surgeon, window cleaner. Compound nouns like these cannot be separated by other words: you could say the ‘the imposing Albert Hall’ but you could not say ‘the Albert imposing Hall’. In addition, the stress in a compound noun is on the first word. This helps to distinguish these compound nouns from any other premodified nouns. The line between is a fine one. [Here’s one comment](http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/compounds.htm). > [@](#): > > How a word modified by an adjective — “a little school,” “the yellow butter” — is different from a compound word — " a high school," “the peanut butter” — is a nice and philosophical question. It clearly has something to do with the degree to which the preceding word changes the essential character of the noun, the degree to which the modifier and the noun are inseparable. If you were diagramming a sentence with a compound word, you would probably keep the words together, on the same horizontal line. Getting back to immigration policy, the line may need to be drawn in context. If you are talking about the many different types of policy that a government has, economic policy, environmental policy, tax policy, then policy is stressed and the modifier is an adjective. However, in a discussion of Mexican relations, immigration policy might be a single thing in which both words are part of a compound noun. Interestingly, English’s influence is leaking over into other languages. [http://spanish.about.com/cs/grammar/a/two\_word\_nouns.htm](http://spanish.about.com/cs/grammar/a/two_word_nouns.htm) > [@](#): > > Purists of the Spanish language may be horrified, but the influence of English is leading to the increasing use of two-word nouns (usually considered a type of compound noun) in Spanish. A few examples should define this phenomenon: > •perro guía (guide dog) > •código fuente (source code) > •hora punta (rush hour) > •sitio web (Web site) > •kilowatt hora (kilowatt hour) > •año luz (light year) > > Important note: While in English it is possible to indiscriminately use nouns as adjectives, the same is not true in Spanish. The use of two-word nouns is a rare exception, not the rule. You should not coin two-word nouns or invariable adjectives; you should only use ones that you have heard or seen used and know that your audience will understand. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549/30 "2009-04-29T17:00:40Z")
It might be more helpful not to follow the terminology of the parts of speech so strictly. Compound nouns usually consist of two nouns, but not always. Although often the first noun effectively functions as an adjective, it’s not pronounced like an adjective and noun combination (equal stress). It’s pronounced like one word. He’s in the green house. (adjective-noun: equal stress) He’s in the greenhouse. (one compound noun:first syllable has more stress) He’s a street cleaner. (compound noun in two parts: first word of the compound noun has more stress, as though they were written together) Database used to be written as “data-base.” With the rise of computer technology, people just started to write it as one word. But the pronunciation didn’t change. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-two-words-together-yet-separate-be-a-noun-by-itself/494549.md?page=1)