Talk:Blend word

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

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 (UTC)

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]

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]