I was recently embroiled in a Talmudic Study Session when we came upon a linguistic term that I could not explain satisfactorily in English. My study-partners always look to me for grammar/linguistic explanations and I feel that I let them down.
The linguistic phenomenon that we ran across was a word that is made up of smaller words - like a compound word (“mountaintop, fountainhead”) - that is, itself, the name of the thing the smaller words describe.
I know that isn’t the clearest explanation, so I will try to press on. I can’t think of an English equivalent, but pretend that golfers, frustrated with having to say, “wheely-pull cart” started saying “whepucart.” It’s sort of like a contraction… but not quite.
I think that “Soho” and “Tribeca” are legitimate examples of this sort of thing and I’m frustrated because I have a sneaking suspicion that I’ve recently read a William Saffire column about this phenomenon.
BobT, I don’t think that’s what I’m looking for… but it could be.
I’ll hold out for someone else to take a crack, but thanks!
A portmanteau word, with which I am familiar, is named such because a “portmanteau” is a kind of suitcase; such a word is created by “packing” two or more words together into one.
You’re talking about two different things: “fountainhead” and “mountaintop” contain the full words, whereas “whepucart” drops parts of the words.
The word for dropping letters or syllables in pronunciation is “elision” or “eliding” but I’ve no idea what it might be called when you’re just running two valid words together without dropping anything.
Blend is a synonym for portmanteau word, which contains the first part of the first word and the second part of the second word, as in
motel = MOtor hoTEL
brunch = BReakfast lUNCH (lunch is a clipped form of luncheon)
An acronym contains the first part of each word (often just the first letter of each word)
avgas = AViation GASoline
RADAR = RAdio Detection And Ranging
This is something different from a contraction as in
fo’c’s’le = forecastle
bosun = boatswain
This probably does not help a great deal but: Soho The district of central London has a name that may well derive from the traditional hunting cry ‘So-Ho!’, which was used in hare-hunting, just as ‘Tally-Ho!’ was used in fox-hunting. There were fields in Soho before the region was built over in the 18th century, and it is on record that hunting took place here in the mid-16th century. The name is first found in a text of 1632 as So Ho.
[b[Nostradamus**: I noticed in your profile that you’re in England. Soho is also a neighborhood in New York City that’s south of Houston Street. Similarly, Tribeca is the triangle below Canal Street. (Also in NYC).
[b[Nostradamus**: I noticed in your profile that you’re in England. Soho is also a neighborhood in New York City that’s south of Houston Street. Similarly, Tribeca is the triangle below Canal Street. (Also in NYC).
Languages that tend to create new words by combining several words to make a new word are called “agglutinative languages” (sp? I think that’s the right way but nevertheless sp?). So I think agglutination might describe what you are talking about.
SoHo and TriBeCa sort of fall under the rubric of acronyms although they could also be considered blends I suppose.
I believe “compound word” is the accepted linguistic term for words that simply put two whole words together to create a new word (often with a new meaning. E.g. “Blackbird” “black” isn’t simply an adjective any more, it is an essential part of the meaning of the word.)
In the case of SoHo and TriBeCa we seem to see clippingandcompounding working together to create the words.
originally posted by sdimbert:
This isn’t exactly clear, fountainhead, for example, isn’t simply a cobination of the meaning of the two words, it isn’t a fountain and a head or the head of a fountain (literally). It involves processes beyond simply adding the two meanings together.
Having re-read your post, I realize that you are asking about a category of words that is very uncommon in english (I think). I think agglutination is a good word for what you are describing.
Main Entry: ag·glu·ti·na·tion
[list=1]
[li]the action or process of agglutinating[/li][li]a mass or group formed by the union of separate elements[/li][li]the formation of derivational or inflectional words by putting together constituents of which each expresses a single definite meaning[/list=1][/li][/quote]
sjc, I think you may be correct. As helpful as the first definition is :rolleyes:, the second and third seem to describe exactly what I am looking for. And, I think you’re also correct that the liguistic phenomenon I’m describing is uncommon in English.
It came up in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Batra. The word is Aramaic and finds its root in ancient French (according to Rashi, the great Talmudic Commentator).
Anyhoo… I think agglutination is what I’m after.
Sooo… can anyone find that Saffire column I know I read?
I have access to online NY Times archives. Safire’s column of December 3, 2000 about words used in spying mentions Netspionage and Netiquette as examples of what he calls “blendwords” (no space).
His column of July 4, 1999 is about “stump compounding”. SoHo and TriBeCa are two of many examples. He also says:
I finally found the term again, for anyone interested.
The Aramaic word is Anpooria (“On-Pooh-Ree’-Ah”) and it is a noun refering to a lost object of such insignificance that no one need ever attempt to return it to its owner. The Talmud gives the example of a leather thong that fell from a tool handle.
The word (which is, I believe, agglutinated) comes from the Aramaic, Ain Po Re-eeah, which means, “not identifiable,” or literally, “nothing here to see.”
I don’t see how this is any different than a regular contraction. You take a phrase made up of multiple words, remove the spaces and take out some letters, then pronounce the new word as shown. The absence of apostrophes is interesting but doesn’t meant these aren’t contractions; there are no apostrophes in German contractions, but they are contractions just the same.
