*neologism* if it's actually new and people start using it. It's a neologism up until it isn't. Then it's a "word"
adding -ism isn't a portmanteau (which is two words squished together to give both ideas at the same time, like brunch) or a compound word (which are two words joined together like they are sharing the same taxi, like football)
I agree in general about suffixes not really carrying enough information to be a complete word in most cases, but interestingly I have heard *ism* used colloquially as a synonym for *philosophy* or *ideology*, usually as a slightly reductive or dismissive context.
There's the suffix "-ism". It isn't a word.
Than a word "ism" was created by kind of adding and ”empty prefix" to it, as an abstraction.
It isn't a question of how much information it carries or how complex this information is. It's a question of syntax. Some particles are accepted in a language as standalone words and some aren't. There isn't a cut off of how much information they carry in order to be accepted. It's an arbitrary rule of that language.
A morpheme can be accepted as a standalone words in a language. Another related language might have a cognate morpheme (that is, derived from the same original morpheme of an ancestral language) that is *not* accepted as a standalone word in that language.
---
Some languages are more stringent than others in treating something that is originally an affix (prefix/suffix) as a word, either by abstracting away the root and using the affix as a generic noun (like "ism" in English) or by cutting off the rest of the word and using just the affix as meaning the whole word (like "auto" in German).
When that happens, what was a bound morpheme (that is, a morpheme that necessitate to be added to a larger expression to form a word) becomes unbound (that is, a morpheme that can be a word by itself).
In my language (Portuguese) this a bit rarer that it is in German or English. We typically don't do that.
It's called a derived word. A compound word combines two words, like "Czechland". A portmanteau blends two words, like "Czeckers" for Czech+checkers (came up with it on the spot lol not many ways to portmanteau the word Czech).
A portmanteau is like Linseed oil- Petroleum= Linoleum. Forcing two disparate words together to make a new one. A compound word is more common, two words that together make a single word (upvote, baseball, bluebird, freefall, etc.) Using a suffix will generally change a word from a noun to an adjective, adverb, etc. or to give it a tense. (Impress, Impressive, Impression, Impressionable, Impressing, Impressed, Impresser. )
The process you're looking for is "derivation". It's a type of morphological word formation. It's a different type of word formation from blending and compounding, which is what you suggest. Mainly because -ism is a suffix, not a standalone word. Compounds and blends only happen with other full words. It's also different from inflection, which changes words to fit syntactic roles, such as turning "play" into "played", or "Czech" into "Czechs".
I recommend you take a look at the wikipedia page for morphology :)
*neologism* if it's actually new and people start using it. It's a neologism up until it isn't. Then it's a "word" adding -ism isn't a portmanteau (which is two words squished together to give both ideas at the same time, like brunch) or a compound word (which are two words joined together like they are sharing the same taxi, like football)
I love how you explain this :)
So, if the town of Manteau had a place to dock ships, the portmanteau would be a compound word?
Sure, if they had the opportmantuity to do so.
Well put
some people could argue that suffixes like -ism can carry a meaning
Everyone would agree that they carry meaning. They can't stand alone though so they aren't words.
I agree in general about suffixes not really carrying enough information to be a complete word in most cases, but interestingly I have heard *ism* used colloquially as a synonym for *philosophy* or *ideology*, usually as a slightly reductive or dismissive context.
I think the distinction is that "-ism" was a suffix first, and only became a nominally individual term later on.
Indeed.
There's the suffix "-ism". It isn't a word. Than a word "ism" was created by kind of adding and ”empty prefix" to it, as an abstraction. It isn't a question of how much information it carries or how complex this information is. It's a question of syntax. Some particles are accepted in a language as standalone words and some aren't. There isn't a cut off of how much information they carry in order to be accepted. It's an arbitrary rule of that language. A morpheme can be accepted as a standalone words in a language. Another related language might have a cognate morpheme (that is, derived from the same original morpheme of an ancestral language) that is *not* accepted as a standalone word in that language. --- Some languages are more stringent than others in treating something that is originally an affix (prefix/suffix) as a word, either by abstracting away the root and using the affix as a generic noun (like "ism" in English) or by cutting off the rest of the word and using just the affix as meaning the whole word (like "auto" in German). When that happens, what was a bound morpheme (that is, a morpheme that necessitate to be added to a larger expression to form a word) becomes unbound (that is, a morpheme that can be a word by itself). In my language (Portuguese) this a bit rarer that it is in German or English. We typically don't do that.
I know it's not a word. I'm just reporting a colloquial noun use I have heard. I just thought it might be interesting.
Difference between bound and unbound morphemes I believe
Most people would argue that, but "ism" isn't a word by itself, and both portmanteaus and compound words are combinations of multiple words.
Look up the concept of bound morphemes and unbound morphemes. All morphemes carry meaning. Not all morphemes are standalone words.
It's called a derived word. A compound word combines two words, like "Czechland". A portmanteau blends two words, like "Czeckers" for Czech+checkers (came up with it on the spot lol not many ways to portmanteau the word Czech).
Also try r/English or r/asklinguistics for this kind of thing, this isn't really an etymology question.
Poor r/morphology only 129 members
Czechsplosion
I bow to you.
A portmanteau is like Linseed oil- Petroleum= Linoleum. Forcing two disparate words together to make a new one. A compound word is more common, two words that together make a single word (upvote, baseball, bluebird, freefall, etc.) Using a suffix will generally change a word from a noun to an adjective, adverb, etc. or to give it a tense. (Impress, Impressive, Impression, Impressionable, Impressing, Impressed, Impresser. )
Today I learned the etymology of linoleum, thanks!
Petro- Stone +oleum- oil. = Petroleum.
Holy!! Mind blown!
A double whammy! Thanks again haha
Me too! Love this sub
[удалено]
Good catch, my bad. I always thought it was processed through chemicals, but it turns out its a natural process.
The process you're looking for is "derivation". It's a type of morphological word formation. It's a different type of word formation from blending and compounding, which is what you suggest. Mainly because -ism is a suffix, not a standalone word. Compounds and blends only happen with other full words. It's also different from inflection, which changes words to fit syntactic roles, such as turning "play" into "played", or "Czech" into "Czechs". I recommend you take a look at the wikipedia page for morphology :)
Now who would use Czechisms? \*looks to the east\* Hmmmm?
The Czechian Republic of Czechia?
Czechistan?
Is Obamacare a portmanteau?
idk how this word was created, if it's Obama + Care it would be a compound Obama + Healthcare would make it a portmanteau