A bound given-name prefix joins the following word into one given name — abdul salam ahmed gives given abdul salam. After a title, that join does not happen, and only one word becomes the given name:
Sheik abdul salam title='Sheik' given='abdul' family='salam'
Sheik abdul salam ahmed title='Sheik' given='abdul salam' family='ahmed'
The join needs three pieces that are neither title nor suffix (BoundJoin.STRICT), so with a title and two names it declines.
Sheik Abu Bakar looks like a counter-example but is not:
Sheik Abu Bakar title='Sheik' given='Abu Bakar' family=''
That works only because abu is also a particle, so the particle chain fires — nothing to do with the bound given-name vocabulary. abdul is bound-given and not a particle, and it does not chain. Confirmed by the piece structure:
Sheik Abu Bakar [Sheik][Abu Bakar] head tags: particle, vocab:bound-given, vocab:particle-ambiguous
Sheik abdul salam [Sheik][abdul][salam] head tags: vocab:bound-given
Why it matters now
#367 makes titles transparent to the leading-particle exception, which removes the particle chain in Sheik Abu Bakar and regresses it to given Abu, family Bakar. The reading most people want — given Abu Bakar — would then have to come from the bound given-name rule, which is where it should have come from all along.
The question
Should a bound given-name join be allowed after a title with only two following pieces? That would give:
Sheik Abu Bakar given='Abu Bakar' family='' (restored, for the right reason)
Sheik abdul salam given='abdul salam' family='' (changed from given='abdul', family='salam')
The second row is the real decision: is Sheik abdul salam a two-word given name with no surname, or given abdul plus family salam? The same question the BoundJoin.STRICT threshold answers "reserve a piece for the family" everywhere else.
Note the interaction with GIVEN_NAME_TITLES: Sheik is a given-name title, so it already asserts that what follows is a given name. That may be the signal that licenses the join past the threshold — in which case the rule would be narrower than "after any title".
Scope
Default-order change; needs a tools/differential pass with ledger entries.
Split out of #367 so that change stays one mechanism.
A bound given-name prefix joins the following word into one given name —
abdul salam ahmedgives givenabdul salam. After a title, that join does not happen, and only one word becomes the given name:The join needs three pieces that are neither title nor suffix (
BoundJoin.STRICT), so with a title and two names it declines.Sheik Abu Bakarlooks like a counter-example but is not:That works only because
abuis also a particle, so the particle chain fires — nothing to do with the bound given-name vocabulary.abdulis bound-given and not a particle, and it does not chain. Confirmed by the piece structure:Why it matters now
#367 makes titles transparent to the leading-particle exception, which removes the particle chain in
Sheik Abu Bakarand regresses it to givenAbu, familyBakar. The reading most people want — givenAbu Bakar— would then have to come from the bound given-name rule, which is where it should have come from all along.The question
Should a bound given-name join be allowed after a title with only two following pieces? That would give:
The second row is the real decision: is
Sheik abdul salama two-word given name with no surname, or givenabdulplus familysalam? The same question theBoundJoin.STRICTthreshold answers "reserve a piece for the family" everywhere else.Note the interaction with
GIVEN_NAME_TITLES:Sheikis a given-name title, so it already asserts that what follows is a given name. That may be the signal that licenses the join past the threshold — in which case the rule would be narrower than "after any title".Scope
Default-order change; needs a
tools/differentialpass with ledger entries.Split out of #367 so that change stays one mechanism.