It is considered in general that we cannot divide proper nouns any deeper. In respect of many linguistic phenomena, however, they should also be analyzed morphologically if they are a composite of two or more morphemic forms. Whatever linguistic form ...
It is considered in general that we cannot divide proper nouns any deeper. In respect of many linguistic phenomena, however, they should also be analyzed morphologically if they are a composite of two or more morphemic forms. Whatever linguistic form a word may have, if it is once analyzed into parts, its meaning as a whole gets lost. However, if the linguistic form is a composite, we should try a morphological analysis of it. In case of common nouns, they are objects of morphological analysis if they are a composite, even though they do not always refer to their referents by their etymological meaning and the referents may not be referred to by the analyzed components of the composite. Therefore, it cannot be the reason for not doing the analysis of proper nouns morphologically that they do not refer to their referents by their etymological meaning and their analyzed components may neither carry their composite meaning nor refer to the referents of the composite. Since the difference between common nouns and proper nouns is not whether they are analyzable morphologically and to divide a linguistic form into smaller parts has nothing to do with the number of its referents, if common nouns are morphologically analyzable, there is no reason for avoiding morphological analysis of proper nouns. In fact, the morphological and semantic discussions on proper nouns so far presuppose the morphological analysis of them. Obviously, if we do not analyze proper nouns morphologically, then there would be a problem that we have to treat proper nouns of composite form as single morphemes, and that the same forms used in both proper nouns and other words must be treated differently. And a morpheme used in a proper noun itself is a general independent morpheme, having no relation to the unique meaning of the whole proper noun. It is thus necessary that proper nouns undergo morphological analysis. Use of one syllable or two for first name in personal names and calling a person of two-syllable first name only with one syllable suggest that personal names can be morphologically analyzed. The possibility of morphological analysis of geographical names and business-firm names is supported by those names composed of two or more languages, the coexistence of a pure Korean name and a Sino-Korean name for the same place, the place names made up of one syllable each from two Sino-Korean place names, and a code in the ``Law of Roman Alphabetic Transliteration of Korean`` that stipulates a hyphen (-) should be inserted before a form representing an administrative district unit or ``ga`` meani ng street.