Comment by mcswell
3 months ago
This semantic variability in the relation between the two nouns of a compound is pretty common in compound nouns: "Y made of X", like "tomato paste", "Y used (somehow) for X" (like "toothpaste", "paintbrush", "electrical outlet"--here an adjective, but still a lexicalized phrase), "Y in X" ("treehouse"), "Y for X" ("doghouse"), "Y containing X" ("paint can"), not to mention metaphorical uses, with some etymological relation between X and Y ("moon shot", "crapshoot", "greenhouse"), and so on. Not to mention multi-word compounds, like "greenhouse gas"--but I'm sure you've seen lots of those in Germany :).
“Windows Subsystem for Linux” is probably the most confusing example of this (an environment subsystem which provides a Linux userspace to a Windows NT kernel). more intuitive would be to call it a Linux Subsystem for Windows, but presumably for branding purposes they wanted Windows in front.
That one isn't an example of this. It is actually a Windows Subsystem (at least WSL1) that exposes Linux syscalls, so is for Linux userspace programs. There is also the Windows Subsystem for Win32 and there used to be a Windows Subsystem for Unix.
Linux Subsystem would be completely wrong, because it is a Subsystem of Windows not of Linux.
No it wouldn't. Following the scheme a couple of comments above, we have:
Y of X providing Z - Windows Subsystem for Linux.
Y providing X on Z - Linux Subsystem for Windows.
The former is "for [having]", the latter is "for [use on]".
8 replies →