I have one true-or-false question.
The different stress used in a compound do not usually affect the meaning of the compound.
The example used in my book to illustrate why this statement is false is the word “red coat”. While I know it means a coat that is red when its second syllable is stressed, and it means a British soldier especially in America during the Revolutionary War when the first syllable is stressed, It seems to me the "fact" that it is a phrase not a compound word anymore when it means a coat that is red can't be the proof of the falsehood of the statement.
Is the example wrong in the sense that “red coat” which means a coat that is red is a noun phrase? If "red coat” which means a coat that is red is a compound word, then my question would be how to distinguish a phrase from an open compound.
Is my understanding of this statement wrong? I suppose it’s false to say that the change of a stress affect the meaning of the compound word when there is no compound word.
Is the statement wrong? If my understanding is right, and the example in my book is wrong, then I need other examples to illustrate the truth value of the statement. My question would be whether there are compound words whose meanings would be changed once there is a change in stress?