I have replied to many other comments, if you are interested in my line of thinking, you may check them out[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44845575
> News-Teller” are two English words that wouldn't be used together in that way
I'd respectfully disagree. You can't definitively say that two words "wouldn't be used together in that way". Language is constantly evolving organically, and compound words often emerge through natural usage before appearing in dictionaries. Dictionaries document language as it develops rather than dictating what's permissible. "News-teller" follows standard English compounding patterns and clearly conveys its meaning; that's how language naturally develops.
> You can't definitively say that two words "wouldn't be used together in that way".
Languages aren't just aggregates of individual words. There are several individual words in English that mean “person who tells the news”, and it is idiomatic to use them, not the combination “News-Teller".
Word-by-word translation is not the gold standard of translation, because individual words that seem to have the right meaning can be meaningless, have different meaning, or just be non-idiomatic in combination. Good translation is more than word-by-word and takes into account idiom in both the source language and the destination language.
Perhaps I should have said aren't used together in that way.
You're welcome to try to invent your own language, but you shouldn't be surprised when people push back on it. Chances are people aren't going to use your invention.
"News-teller" sounds archaic at best, or like a non-native trying to literally translate something, which is in fact exactly what's happening here.
Invented words or word combinations are more likely to catch on when there's a need for them. There are various words that already exist for this, so no need to invent a new one. Announcer, reporter, and even e.g. herald and crier if one is looking for a more historical meaning, that appears in the title of many newspapers.
> You're welcome to try to invent your own language.
What I'm doing with "news-teller" (or news teller) is not inventing my own language at all, and I don't appreciate dismissive or snarky remarks, especially when they're incorrect.
From a grammatical standpoint, "news-teller" is perfectly valid, English freely allows such noun-noun compounds. It's not an arbitrary invention, but a natural, transparent compound formed from two common, easily understood words. English has always created new terms this way (storyteller, truth-teller, lawgiver, bookseller), and while "news-teller" is not standard, it follows established morphological patterns. Because both components are familiar, most speakers would grasp its meaning immediately, arguably more so today than with the now-archaic "herald". You can even check Google's Books Ngram Viewer. Check for "news teller" and "herald".
The fact that "news-teller" isn't in widespread use does NOT make it "invented language". It makes it an uncommon but legitimate formation under the existing rules of English. If you doubt that, you could ask people whether they understand "herald" and then ask if they understand "news-teller". If you ask "news-teller" first, they will probably infer it means the same thing, so avoid that.
In any case, I already said I am fine with "reporter" or "announcer", and that I was providing a literal translation that everyone understands over "herald". This is literally the essence of my point, which is not the one being argued. Was I wrong in believing this literal translation is better (see: easier to understand) than "herald'?
I interpreted part of your comment as saying that Google ngram shows news-teller is more common than herald.
I checked newsteller, news teller, news-teller, and herald. Looks like herald is roughly 50,000 times more common.
I was talking about the Google's Books Ngram, but according to even https://ngrams.org/ngram-viewer.html, that is not true: https://i.imgur.com/zlss0Ib.png.
Regardless, this is an irrelevant detail to my comment, so comparing frequencies is pointless.