[Generally it has been coined as] Obamadon
laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Mon Dec 17 15:30:15 UTC 2012
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:
>> 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.
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l