Though onomatapoic often refers to sound, the suggestion does not have to be related to sound.
I see spiky as being onomatapoic, since though s is smoothe, k and y are very spiky and the p has a pointy lower end to it as well.
Ooozing just ooooozes along on all those O’s.
Brain Wreck: Many, many thanks. For further (and quite interesting reading) see our old friend Mr. Wiki.
Whatever we decide that word we’re looking for is, I hope to god it ends in -age.
Not -GRY ?
These are phenomimes. If you want to go with the broader folk usage of onomatopoeia I’m not going to try to correct you, but you should understand at least that there’s a most-suitable word for what you’re talking about.
But phenomimes is a specialist word that doesn’t seem to have gotten into many dictionaries yet. So though phenomimes and psychomimes may be validly used in a paper on linguistics they have yet to gain the status of words valid in general usage. That said you are equally correct to try and introduce them to a broader group and like blogging and podcasting it could hopefully become a word that can be used safely outside its otherwise limited sphere.
Um, I’ve been using the word ‘FLink’ since around 1995 as a conflation of ‘Fake’ or ‘Fantasy’ and ‘Link’. I make and sell what I call ‘FLink’ cards, being cards which appear to have been linked to other cards or other objects in an impossible or magical way, without any cuts or joins, without seams or adhesive. They have been exhibited in art galleries and used in ‘motivational’ training courses as study objects.
And Corner Case’s contribution above was superb.
So are you saying that “portmanteau” has a different meaning in linguistics? If so, what is the real meaning of the word? Or are you saying that it’s not actually part of linguists’ jargon at all? I want to use that word more often in everyday conversation because it’s cool, but I don’t want to appear like an ignorant ass when I do it.
The difference is subtle; it’s just a single word that takes the place of two grammatical words, and it need not be a blend of both words. For example, the french au is a stand-in for a le (to the). It doesn’t represent a fusion of the concept or a blend of the words, it is just one word in the place of two.
However, everyone and their brother now uses portmanteau for “blend”, so I don’t know if you can even call it a mistake at this point. Words are losing their specific meaning right and left; you can’t complain about it without being called a dirty prescriptivist.
Band name!
This has to be one of the silliest complaints I’ve ever heard.
I hate to break this to you, but the “blend” meaning of portmaneau word predates this other technical meaning (that few other than linguists have even heard of and I never heard before this) by a long ways. Go reread your Lewis Carroll.
Accept.
Accept accept accept.
Accept.
For a thread about words, I would’ve expected this to be picked up sooner.
snap, crackle, pop!
Now that that has all been cleared up, I just thought I would post my favorite blend:
slitch
I came across that word in a Heinlein novel, where it was used as a durogatory term for a female. There didn’t seem to be any way to get the meaning wrong on that one. I have tried to use it in conversation with people that hadn’t read the book, and not one has ever had to ask what it meant.
A portmanteau may or may not also be a blend. Carroll’s original usage was both a portmanteau and a blend. Not all blends are portmanteaux. Please don’t dispute something just because a number of people including yourself may not have heard of it.
Just what the vocabulary needed. :rolleyes:
I called my last novella Ragabout Che. I intended a ragabout to be a sort of disreputable vagrant/outsider. When googling it to make sure it wasn’t a word, I found someone else had used it in a story, apparently the same way. “…bought a knife from a ragabout…”
Googling it again, there’s another: “…Charlene can’t really use a ragabout father as an excuse…”