The meaning of a sentence

Question

I have a question while reading an GRE passage. To help your understanding, i put the whole passage below.

Whether the languages of the ancient American peoples were used for expressing abstract universal concepts can be clearly answered in the case of Nahuatl. Nahuatl, like Greek and German, is a language that allows the formation of extensive compounds. By the combination of radicals or semantic elements, single compound words can express complex conceptual relations, often of an abstract universal character.

The tlamatinime (those who know) were able to use this rich stock of abstract terms to express the nuances of their thought. They also availed themselves of other forms of expression with metaphorical meaning, some probably original, some derived from Toltec coinages. Of these forms, the most characteristic in Nahuatl is the juxtaposition of two words that, because they are synonyms, associated terms, or even contraries, complement each other to evoke one single idea. Used metaphorically, the juxtaposed terms connote specific or essential traits of the being they refer to, introducing a mode of poetry as an almost habitual form of expression.

My question is about a bold sentence. I understand that some in the sentence indicated 'the forms of expression'. May I consider 'the forms of expression' as ' the formation of compound words'? In answer sheet, 'the forms of expression' is only treated as just 'expression'. Is that right?

Is there any difference between 'forms of expression' and 'expression'?

Answer 1

This passage does not talk about different “expressions” but about different “forms of expression”—different ways of composing meaningful expressions.

You may be confused by the fact that English teachers often speak of constructions in which one noun modifies another—business owner, for example—as ‘compunds’; but the term ‘compound’ is used in a different sense here. As it says, explicitly, “single compound words” are formed by “the combination of radicals or semantic elements”. An example in English is geopolitics, formed by combining geo- = ‘earth’ with politics.

This “form of expression”, compounds, is contrasted with other forms, such as

juxtaposition of two words that, because they are synonyms, associated terms, or even contraries, complement each other to evoke one single idea.

This is not a figure I've observed in English, but here’s an example from the Wikipedia article on Nahuatl : in xochitl, in cuicatl, means literally ‘the flower, the song’, but the juxtaposition—putting the two terms side by side—means ‘poetry’.

Answer 2

I understand that 'some' in the sentence indicated 'the forms of expression'.

At first glance, like you, it appeared to me that 'some' referred to 'forms of expression'. However, going back and re-reading the sentence makes it appear more ambiguous: 'some' could refer to either 'the forms of expression' as you've identified, or it could also refer to 'the metaphorical meaning' of the expressions, those meanings could probably be original (e.g. describing a new word) or represent existing Toltec coinages (e.g. a compound word that also has an equivalent simple word, like 'motorized horse carriage' and 'automobile').

May I consider 'the forms of expression' as ' the formation of compound words'?

The phrase 'Of these forms, the most characteristic ... is the juxtaposition of two words' indicates that the most common form of expression was compound words, but it isn't the only one.

In answer sheet, 'the forms of expression' is only treated as just 'expression'. Is that right? Is there any difference between 'forms of expression' and 'expression'?

I would assume that to be correct and there is no difference in this context, since the answer sheet would use the shorthand of 'expression' instead of the lengthier phrase 'forms of expression' purely in the interest of convenience and brevity.