Disputatio:Verbum amalgamatum

message: The Latin and Greek examples given in the article at present are, it seems to me, compound words, not portmanteau words. :en:Portmanteau says (correctly I think) that portmanteau words are "fused", not just compounded. Some part of each constituent word disappears into the fusion. Lewis Carroll (or Humpty Dumpty), who invented the term, gives several examples invented by himself -- one of which is quoted in the article -- and there are some later ones, notably English smog. I don't say there are no portmanteau words in Latin, but I can't think of any.
[Later edit:] I've now revised the first part of the article (correctly I hope). I've added a translation of the Carroll quote, but if anyone has the Carruthers translation that had better go in instead (I quite enjoyed inventing a Latin version of Carroll's "slithy"!). Although, as I say, I doubt the Latin and Greek examples are truly portmanteau words, I've left them in -- others may disagree with me, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:51, 24 Martii 2007 (UTC)
[Later still!] I've tried to state the etymology precisely. Not sure about "middle French" (the precise meaning of this term varies anyway) so I have replaced it with the century, which is unambiguous. This is still a French word, incidentally, though (as in English) the meaning has shifted from "servant" to "suitcase"!
Is there a source for the plural "portmanteaux" in this linguistic sense? I ask because it's obviously a bastard form (in real French the singular is porte-manteaux and the plural is identical). In English, I, and my Random House dictionary, only know "portmanteau word" as a phrase, and in such a phrase the first word would not be pluralised; but I see that en:Wikipedia swears that portmanteau occurs as a stand-alone noun in this sense. Perhaps it's right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 25 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISO 639 timeframe of 'Middle French' (frm) is about 1400-1600.  Google Books for portmanteaux words indicates that the plural is so used, though it is perhaps not common.  As for the use of 'portmanteau' tantum, the linguists at Language Log are guilty of it more or less frequently. —Mucius Tever 23:38, 25 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias, Myce! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 26 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::What about "hodie"? --Ioshus (disp) 12:38, 26 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, I feel even that is a borderline case, since nothing of "die" has disappeared. It's the best yet, certainly, since "ho" is definitely incomplete (so far as I can see).

text: :::In reality the portmanteau word is not a normal linguistic procedure; it derives from word games. We need an article about compound words, in which those other examples would fit. Maybe I'll start one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:57, 27 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::A promise I failed to keep; but Ioshe kept it for me (see Verbum compositum). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:39, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Would I be right in saying paeninsula is an example? Another one from Alicia in Terra Mirabili is Petasivenditor (Petasorum + Venditor). I'm not sure if these fall under this category or not...--Secundus Zephyrus 04:03, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really, Zephyre. For it to be a portmanteau, both words need to be truncated. In both your examples, one of the words stays fully intact : insula and venditor. Think brunch and spork...--Ioshus (disp) 04:22, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I could swear I knew a classical Latin portmanteau, but the only one that comes to mind is the very modern digiseminatio ;) --Iustinus 06:13, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

text: Ecce verbum: suovetaurilia 'sacrifice of a swine, a sheep, and a bull'. The portmanteau part is su-ove-taur- (su- from sus + ove- from ovis + taur- from taurus), and the -ilia is a necessary suffix. IacobusAmor 10:08, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Sorry, Andrew, while your translation certainly pleased me, I have finally found the published version! --Ioscius (disp) 15:17, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's preserve it here:
replies: text: :"Flubrilis significat flexilis et lubricus ... Videsne? simile est armario: duae significationes inclusae sunt uno verbo." Aliciae per Speculum Transistus vertente Andrea Dalby.

text: I have found a second published translation of the first few chapters of Looking Glass, but I don't think it gets this far --Iustinus 20:13, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation 

message: Shouldn't we count our Carruthers quote as a citation for vidulus duplex? --Iustinus 20:13, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Say more Justin. Thought the quote above shows "armarium". --Ioscius  ∞ 07:38, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :This conversation is getting confusing. Ignore "armario" in the quote above, because that has no authority: it was my translation, now correctly replaced in the article by an existing published translation. OK, does Carruthers' phrase "Simile videlicet vidulo duplici est" amount to a citation in Latin for "vidulus duplex = portmanteau (word)"? Personally I don't think it does, quite, hence I didn't respond to it, but, if others think it does, I don't object. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:31, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, one normally considers Lewis Carroll the inventor of "portmanteau," and surely would cite this very passage as proof. If it doesn't count in Latin then it doesn't count in English. Then again, I suppose he used it more unambiguously in other sources, such as The Hunting of the Snark. I don't have the Latin translation(s) of this latter work (and haven't seen a copy in person for decades), but I suppose it's worth checking if the interpreters included the introduction. --Iustinus 14:38, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

text: ::Hahahaha. Sorry I missed the Andrea vertente part. I'm not crazy on it either. A "double suitcase" doesn't do the same as portmanteau. --Ioscius  ∞ 08:45, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Locus Latinus

message: Sorry, I couldn't stand having four non-Latin names so I just converted the lemma into a Latin form. I don't know if we have any Latin attestation for this concept. Pantocrator 13:31, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when you know, bring your knowledge along to the feast. For the time being, since the four names are fully footnoted, I'm moving it back. This is a technical term which was devised by Lewis Carroll (or by Humpty-Dumpty, to be precise) in English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ahem, see vidulus duplex at Locus Latinus above.  --Iustinus 05:24, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Though Lewis Carroll did invent the term "Portmanteau", at least in the sense it is commonly used today, he did NOT invent the concept. Therefore, it would be reasonable to use a more Latin name for it. Since portmanteau comes from words that are untimately of Latin origin, specifically portare and mantellum, portimantellum would be a good Latinization. Verbum Macedonicum, a direct Latin translation of the Italian, would also do and probably be an even better Latinization. -Kedemus 24 Aperilis 2012 19:07 UTC
thread_title:  Titulus 

message: Mihi, ut aliis quoque linguistis (ni fallor), portmanteau certam et exactam dat significationem, quae haec est: duae pluresve functiones sive significationes grammaticae in unam morpham impositae; sicut latine solem intueor, ubi /-em/ morpha duas in se functiones grammaticas includit, quae sunt 'accusativus' et 'singularis'. Aliud, et quidem magis notum, exemplum est au, re vera morpha /o/ Francogallica, quae in se, tamquam in vidulo quodam, functiones 'à' praepositionis et 'le' articuli includit. ¶ Hic praesertim de Wikipedia Anglica cogito, ubi Portmanteau impendio easdem res tractat ac Blend word. Vix opus est ambabus commentationibus, si eandem fere rem tractant. Res quas Carroll olim portmanteau vocabat, hodie in aliquot linguis verbo Latino q.e. contaminatio appellatur. Tantane est auctoritas Carrolliana, in qua adhaerere debeamus? Si ita est, Blend word supervacare videtur. An false de his iudico? Neander (disputatio) 18:28, 8 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Haud false. Auctoritas Carrolliana Humptydumptiana magna est sed in ludis linguisticis praecipue residet. Leges philologicas elaborare non praetendit.

text: Locutionem "blend word" nunquam usque hodie audivi ego! sed commentatio, quam adducis, perutile est remque generalem melius describit. Verbum ab Carroll H. Dumpty applicatum praecipue errores et ludos, non processus normales linguisticos definit (sicut iam supra olim dixi). Ergo, si commentationem generalem scribere vis, scribe! Si haec commentatio in tuam novam incorporanda sit, incorpora. Cf. rubricam "Lexical selection" in commentatione Anglica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:08, 8 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De significationibus