I was curious about making new words in English and comparing this process to my native language. I wanted an adjective that describes a person who is actively involved in attacking different places.
Consider a person named John. John is actively involved in attacking different places. So a person who is involved with John may hear expressions like "John attacked on Place1.", "John is attacking on Place2.". And the leader of John may say "Attack on Place3." to John as an obligative sentence. And so many other expressions about John attacking some place.
In my native language, Over a long time, repeated usages of "attack on" in different sentences can result in the construction of "attack-on" as a new word. Then people can describe John as being attack-on.
Examples include: "John is attack-on.", "I've seen attack-on John." and "attack-on john is coming.".
You may use "attacking" as in "attacking john" for this purpose, but I am curious if the new word mentioned is correct in the English Language. And I also think the sentence "john is attacking" implies that at this particular moment, John is attacking on someplace. But John should be described as a frequent attacker.
I want to know if "attack-on" can be an English word. And if the process I mentioned for constructing "attack-on" as a new word can happen in an English-speaking community? Also, I want to know if the hyphen can be dropped and "attack-on" be used simply as "attack on"?
As a complication, the verb "attack" can be used without "on". I would also like to know how this issue affects the mentioned process.
I've checked a dictionary of about 80k words and found about ten similar words. I'll provide two of them as an example:
Note that "spot on" can be used without the hyphen. As an example on Wiktionary: I was spot on with my guess.
Please note that this question is about the construction of new words in English.