[Generally it has been coined as] Obamadon

[Laurence Horn]

On Dec 17, 2012, at 2:57 AM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:52 PM, Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Jonathan Lighter
>> <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Iguanodon."
>>
>> And there should be "obamodon."
>>
>> But that would be too much like right. A dubious "honor" is made into
>> a trivial annoyance. :-(
>
> Wilson, i don't know why you're so determined to be sour about this coining, but the phenomenon is a matter of choosing between two resolutions of what happens when Obama combines with -odon; the vowel hiatus could in principle be resolved by sacrificing either vowel (the -a of Obama or the -o of -odon).
>
> the older toothy -don words are all -odon, it is true:
> labyrinthodon, mylodon, iguanodon, sphenodon, glyptodon, mastodon
> but that's because what precedes the -odon was understood to be a STEM with its own existence, independent of whatever vowel might be associated with the stem in its other occurrences. iguan- has iguana as a free-standing word, but it's just iguan- in the family name Iguanidae.  the practice of technical word-coiners was generally to posit a stem without a final vowel, regardless of the etymology.  proper names present a special problem, however, since positing a stem without a final vowel can mask the identity of the proper name.
>
> the coiners of Obamadon chose to be faithful to the proper name.  that seems to me to be a justifiable decision, even if it's not the one that older technical word-coiners would probably have chosen (which in effect ranks the -o of -odon as more significant than the -a of Obama, by extracting a stem Obam- for combination with second elements).  indeed, the identity of the 'tooth' element is entirely clear if -odon loses its -o.
>
> i don't know if there are other cases where the identity of a proper name has been preserved at the cost of a vowel in a combining form, but there probably are some, since the instinct for faithfulness is strong.
>
> in any case, there are two possible resolutions.  one of them has a tradition behind it, but it seems to me that the other is defensible as well, and i see no reason to slam people who have made the second choice.
>
This is reminiscent to me of the -oholic vs. -aholic case with the reanalyzed suffix.  Originally we had "alcohol + ic" > "alcoholic" > liberated "-oholic" suffix, leading to the spin-offs (whether jocular or serious) with -oholic/-aholic/-holic.  Fairly early ones, both from 1965, were "foodoholic" and "sugarholic", but the -aholic versions came to prevail.  While there is still variation on the spelling of the neologisms (some of which are established enough to count as quasi-paleologisms), the established pattern now seems to be -aholic as the default when the base doesn't contribute its own (esp. -o) vowel.  So "chocoholic" but (usually) "workaholic", "sexaholic", "danceaholic", "golfaholic", "chargeaholic", "blogaholic", "textaholic", and nonce formations like "appsaholic", "polishaholic".  On all of these, the -aholic form outperforms the -oholic counterpart, sometimes widely.  So maybe Obamadon will spark a shift from -odon to -adon formations, although the sample siz!
 e may be a bit smaller, given the comparative prevalence of addictions vs. dinosaurs in modern society.

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org