Talk:Blend word

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rshanblatt, JC29226, Cladita91, HtmnnAustin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimplep.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved to Blend per Centrx, without prejudice to a dab page in the future. Unexpectedly, the linguistic use seems to be the only encyclopedic one, so there's no reason not to proclaim that linguistic one is the primary meaning. ({{for}} top-page dab link can be used to point the reader to another use, if any.) I don't see what should go to the dab page; it was fairly stretched IMO. Duja► 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blend → Blend (disambiguation)
Blend (linguistics) → Blend

Blend currently redirects to Blend (linguistics), so the unnecessary disambiguation could be removed – Blend (linguistics) being a primary meaning. However, the initial disambiguation page[1] should be kept, so Blend could be moved to Blend (disambiguation). --Korg (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I dunno. I'm inclined to leave the disambiguation page at Blend. It is a very common term and the linguistic use is a specialized instance -- although aside from conceptual blending, I don't see that we have existing articles for other uses. I'd hope that we might at some point. For example, blending is an important stage in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing (probably in some other types of manufacturing as well). Wikipedia coverage of manufacturing topics is unfortunately light at present. I guess, it is hard for me to see that the linguistic use is in fact primary and that it is only a matter of time before articles on other uses will catch up to density of coverage on topics in linguistics. older ≠ wiser 12:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any other existing articles for "Blend". The cigarette brand might warrant an article, or it might not and never have one. While the linguistic use may not be primary because of the general dictionary word "blend", it seems to be the only encyclopedic name we have. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Prefixindex/Blend lists at least two articles for a dab: Blend (linguistics) and blend corp., as well as (perhaps) the dab Blende. I would rather have the dab at Blend and leave those two where they are, as, to be honest, because I don't see any reason to put one before the other. Kyle Barbour 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blend corp. is up for deletion, and not looking too likely to make it. Does that influence this decision? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ambiguity?

What is the difference between a blend and a portmanteau? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) 2008-04-08T04:12:45

What non-linguists call portmanteaux are blends. Portmanteaux now refer to fused function words in linguistics. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the earlier poster's question. The description of "Blend" appears to define what is commonly known in the English language (linguist or not) as a "Portmanteau". If "Blend" and "Portmanteau" are indeed different concepts, a linguist should be able to define the differing characteristics and support this with references. If they cannot, there is no need for two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In linguistics, a portmanteau – more precisely a portmanteau morpheme – is a fusional morpheme, that is, a morpheme that combines the functions of several others, for example, won't fusing will (marker of the future tense) and not (marker of negation); this is usually said of function words, not lexical words. A blend – more precisely a blend word – is a word that fuses several lexical words and their meanings, and is popularly called a "portmanteau (word)" in English. Thus, portmanteau morphemes are different from blend words, which themselves are the same as so-called "portmanteau words". Therefore, if anything, the current content of portmanteau pertaining to blends should be merged into this article, portmanteau should then be renamed into portmanteau morpheme, and portmanteau (disambiguation) should then be renamed to portmanteau. Alternatively, to avoid instantly turning a ton of links into links to a disambiguation page, after renaming portmanteau to portmanteau morpheme, portmanteau could be turned into a redirect here, and a hatnote pointing to portmanteau (disambiguation) could then be added to this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blending of two roots - too many Hebrew examples

On the "Blending of two roots" section most of the examples, if not all of them, are Hebrew. I think this is a bit unclear for those who do not understand the language (BTW, I speak both languages). The Hebrew examples should be in the Hebrew version of this article. Do you agree? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk)

Rename page to blend (linguistics)

I think this page should be renamed to blend (linguistics), and blend should instead redirect to blend (disambiguation). There are many common uses of the word blend aside from its use in linguistics. Jarble (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blend → Blend word – As I see in this page there is some confusion. First, the original title Blend (linguistics) was poor choice. There are several types of blends in linguistics (and not all of them have articles yet). Second, above there was a dubious claim that "linguistics" was a primary meaning. (and third, nobody cared to add {{otheruses}} after the previous move). I suggest the move which removes the ambiguity about the subject:it is about blend words and not about other linguistic blends (and I fixed the intro accordingly). - Altenmann >t 03:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support WP:ASTONISH clearly not the primary topic of "blend". Hell, the whiskey type is more likely than this topic. The disambiguation page needs to be returned to the primary spot, as blends are mixtures, and not this "blend word" topic -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Poor evidence at all that "blend" is even primarily about words, so disambiguation is needed. The more natural two-word term is preferable to any parenthetical, and there are other linguistic areas, so specificity is good. oknazevad (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The typical meaning of 'blend' is not a linguistics topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Both the original 2007 primaryname grab RM (above) and the recent revert of the attempt to fix it are symptoms of a horrible naming craziness that we've seen too much of, opting for ridiculously ambiguous minimal titles where better titles are easily available, and claiming "primary" for minor uses of those ridiculously short ambiguous titles just because no other article has taken them. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good job, even though the request is a bit malformed. In the future, file this as a multi-move with Blend (disambiguation) being simultaneously proposed to be moved to Blend. Red Slash 01:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- for when I think of blend, I think first of scotch, then of making a margarita in a blender. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed Portmanteau Merger

A note on the page says there is a proposal to port it to portmanteau or blend that article into this one. Neither move seems to me a good idea. This was well stated on the other talkpage: "In linguistics, a portmanteau is a word analyzed as representing two underlying morphemes (commonly two function words), while a blend is a neologism created by phonological merger of two words. For instance, the French du is a portmanteau that replaces de le, which is never used. On the other hand, smog is a blend created from smoke and fog, but it doesn't mean 'smoke fog.' I think some of the contents of portmanteau should be moved to blend. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)" So please let that be our guide, i.e. parts of portmanteau should be moved here. - phi (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a linguist, but it occurs to me that Portmanteau is more specific and Blend Word is more general. I also think the Portmanteau page is well organized with lots of good content whereas the Blend Word page seems to be lacking in clarity. Since Blend Word is not a term in general use (that I am aware of) but can be defined by its parts and related concepts (morphemes, portmanteaus, etc.) I ask why Blend Word should remain in existence. Dsmith77 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the correct linguistic term and calling blends portmanteaux is a popular mistake. Duh! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia might be partially responsible for 'popularising' the word portmanteau (outside of academic circles). The archived discussions from the portmaneau talk page are....enlightening. Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Critque

The references are of excellent quality. However, some of the links are not functioning and they load an error page. Most of the facts can be found in the links so there is no issue with finding information on a particular fact. All the information in the article is relevant. What can be helpful is including more examples of where blend words would be used and be more direct such as in advertising. Showing blend words in different languages is great but it does not grasp the main idea of blend words since each language has their own rules. This article has no bias and remain relatively neutral. There are no signs of conflicting ideas and concepts. Most of the information in this article comes from online textbooks and articles of which appear to remain neutral as well. None of the viewpoints are over or underrepresented. They all explain the main idea of what blend words are and how they are formed. All the links work with the few exceptions in the reference section. There are a few close paraphrases but no part of the article is plagiarized. All of the paraphrasing is done through original notes. All of the information is up-to-date. The article could use some more background information on why blend words are created such as linking the blend words to linguistic creativity and productivity. What can also be added is what would cause speakers to use blended words that are unproductive.

I have two questions: How would you clarify and go more in depth with the concepts differences between Portmanteau and Blend words? Are blend words going occur more often in foreign languages? JC29226 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blend word. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620204124/http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/Blends_Linguistics.pdf to http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/Blends_Linguistics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilad Zuckerman

Are there any linguistics articles on Wikipedia Ghilad has not spammed with his own "research"? Seriously, Ghilad, calm down. We don't need your self-promotion on every Wikipedia linguistics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.86.81 (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again: blend or portmanteau?

According to another article, a portmanteau is a linguistic blend of words. What's more, all blends, named here (in the current article) are also on the list of portmanteaus. Then, what is the difference between a portmanteau and blend? Is there any blend that is not a portmanteau, or any portmanteau that is not a blend? Vikom (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference. Blend is the technical term, portmanteau (word) the popular term, but that one is technically a misnomer because in linguistics, portmanteau already refers to portmanteau morphs. See also my comment at Talk:Portmanteau#"Blend" is the same. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have two separate articles? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why indeed. My pet theories are that (1) it makes people feel special to know and use the more seemingly obscure word portmanteau, and (2) non-specialists assume that specialists must use the obscure word, since it is "special". In my opinion, Portmanteau ought not to exist, but I doubt there is consensus for such an opinion. Cnilep (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnilep: I think there is consensus, but just scattered all over the place. –Austronesier (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are right. I am discouraged by the various arguments at Talk:Portmanteau dating back to the early aughts and the proposed merges on this page without action, as well as things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portmanteaux. Cnilep (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

Dear Writer,

Be aware, this is not a critic but an respect. You have turned to the subject in an elaborate way. Thanks. 85.149.24.135 (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

There may be good reasons to keep two different articles on this topic and portmanteau, but now the differentiation is a joke since both start by using "motel" to define what they're about. It's probably no coincidence that the German WP only has an article on one of these topics since that WP is known for its no-nonsense approach. It also specifically explains that many different terms are used for the same or different kinds of blends and that these terms are used in very nonuniform ways in English, French, and German:

Die Benennung bleibt im Deutschen – ebenso wie im Englischen, Französischen oder Spanischen – sehr uneinheitlich, was häufig beklagt wird. Als erster wies 1933 Harold Wentworth darauf hin.[18][8] Bei den Begriffen wird häufig zwischen dem Vorgang und dem Produkt unterschieden. Im Deutschen gibt es folgende, nicht immer eindeutig verwendete, und von manchen Autoren für Spezialfälle reservierte Bezeichnungen: „(Wort-)Kontamination“, „Port(e)manteau-Wort“ oder „Portmanteau-Bildung“, „Amalgam“ oder „Amalgamierung(sform)“, „Wortkreuzung“ oder „Kreuzungswort“, „Wortverschmelzung“, „Verschmelzungswort“, „Zusammenziehung“, „(haplologische) Wortzusammenziehung“, „haplologische Zusammensetzung“, „Kontraktion“, „Wortmischung“, „Wortvermischung“, „Mischwort“, „Kombi-Wort“, „Wortverschränkung“, „Klappwort“, „Kapselwort“, „Kofferwort“, „Koppelwort“, „Teleskopwort“, „Tandemwort“, „Wortgebilde“, „Kontaminat“ und „Blending“ bzw. „Blend“ (engl. ‚Mischung‘).[8]) --Espoo (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two related discussions:

Let's just finally do it. User:Hoary and I have led it slide somehow :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Austronesier, let's. But are motel and the like "blend words" or simply "blends"? Far more commonly, I think, "blends"; and if indeed so, then this would better be retitled "Blend (linguistics)". -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS "Blend (word)" would also be fine with me. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier, Hoary, and Espoo: So, are you still willing to do this? (The name of the article can be discussed separately, and later. By the way, are technical terms such as "lexical contamination" or "lexical amalgamation" or the like used in English-language linguistic literature too?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Florian Blaschke, Austronesier, and Espoo: Having two articles violates what WP says about content forks (and is plain silly). One or the other should be scrapped. But which? I suspect that any attempt to scrap either will lead to a major and tedious row if there's not already an agreement on which is the better title. ¶ "Lexical contamination" gets "About 901 results" on Google; "lexical amalgamation" gets "About 591 results". For comparison, "phonaestheme" gets "About 4,750 results", and "zeugma" gets "About 2,520,000 results". So I'd say that yes, each makes an appearance in English, but neither does so more than very fleetingly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS The title "Blend (word)" now strikes me as suboptimal. It suggests that the article is about a single word: "blend". (Cf Ain't, which, improbably, is about the word "ain't".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge just to get the ball rolling. The merged page will still be pretty messy at this point. Wolfdog (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]