Sum: `workaholic'

[bwald]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I have a few questions pursuant to Larry's sum of the formation of 'workaholic'.
First, I acknowledge Jim Rader's restriction of "stumping" to word/root
condensation which preserves some initial stretch, as in #SITuation#COMedy,
#AGITation#PROPaganda, etc.  Second, I observe that examples of stump
compounds were only given for languages that have a productive head-final
compounding process, e.g., English, German, Russian, Chinese, but not
French (for which examples approximating "workaholic" were given, cf.
"discotheque", stumped to "disco" in English and then returned to French,
if French did not stump it independently).  I noted that English has
numerous non-compound stumps, e.g., #MATHematics.  It also tolerates
homophony and shifts of grammatical category in stumping, e.g., #CON stumps
CONtra, CONvict and CONfidence (as in con game/man).  (NB #PAN stumps
"panorama" used as a verb, cf. #CON = deceive < confidence).  Third, much
rarer in English is reduction of non-compound words to eliminate initial
syllables (which have some degree of stress).  hamburger > burger may be an
example, if it can be shown that "ham" is not necessarily eliminated as a
morpheme but simply as a convenience to reduction (according to Zipf's
Law), cntr. frankfurter > frank (not *furter).  Is "burger" an example of
CLIPping?
 
My questions are:
 
What's CLIPping?  How does it differ from STUMPing?
        (If the terms overlap, is that useful?)
Are there typological constraints on languages which have stumping?
        (Why should there be if non-compounds can stump?)
Are there typological constraints on languages which have "workaholic"
formations?
        (Why should there be if "workaholic" formations are related to
BLENDS?  There are
          no typological constraints on the occurrence of blends, are there?)