Talk:double penetration

, do you even know what is a compound word? In English, compound words are more commonly written with a space between the component words, but these are compounds! — inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 11:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and isn't one.  is not a noun but an adjective here, so double penetration is a straightforward [adjective + noun] phrase. PUC – 11:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you said could be pertinent to Romance languages, but in Germanic languages the component words can be either a noun or an adjective, and English is no exception; compare for example the compound word, composed of 🇰🇲, and confirmed here. — inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 11:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed derived from adjectival, is more accurately described as a univerbation than a compound, I'd say.
 * As far as I'm aware, [adjective + noun] phrases are practically never solidified in this way, as opposed to [noun + noun] phrases where it's routinely done. That points to them not being considered compounds.
 * There's a meaningful difference here, so such lexicalised [adjective + noun] phrases should get their own category. PUC – 12:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So please undo your reversion. — inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 11:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna do that (also, I disagree with unlinking the words of the headword). Revert me if you wish, but please take this up to the Tea Room. PUC – 12:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And why wouldn’t it be like, ? The reason double penetration is written apart is that it is otherwise too long and because it would become a hybridism. Also I am surprised that neither nor  exists – though we have Category:German words prefixed with doppel-; that this is a prefix in both was my first guess.  Fay Freak (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would be a prefix? It does not seem to be as productive as . —  inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)