(Note: the audio below complements, but does not replicate the content of this entry)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Freakonomics.
If you’re an American and you look at best-seller lists, you know what it is.
If you’re an American and you don’t read, you still have a chance to glean the meaning, because we do rely quite a bit on a linguistic creature known as a portmanteau (or a Frankenword, to give and example that is also a description.) Even the orange/apple on the cover is a visual representation of a portmanteau!
I got to thinking about this because of a couple of terms coined by a fellow communicator in Prague, Adam Daniel Mezei. 
A Canadian emigré, he strolls the streets of his new home and observes the people. Some he diagnoses with a malady called Ostrich Creep; other suffer from malignant Cobblestone Gaze. Which also got me to thinking — aside from the cultural references that might be lost in translation — what would those terms look like in Czech? Or in any other of a number of languages?
I remember the French had a rather awkward way of referring to what we now call Reaganomics: l’économie de Reagan. Doesn’t that just roll off the tongue? But what about other mashed-up words that take new meaning or direction? There would be no Greenmail if there were no Blackmail. There’s an entire generation of American voters that don’t know the Watergate was a hotel, they just know that putting -gate on the end of something makes it scandalous.
Context from Collision
Striking again on my theme that the interesting things in the world happen at the intersections of disciplines, there’s a certain economy that comes from having a language that is flexible enough to survive linguistic collisions. Smashing words together creates a shorthand that communicates a brand new concept. As a non-Czech speaker, I can only take Adam’s word that it is a beautiful language, but does the syntax lend itself to mashing and portmanteaus?
I’m not asking Adam in advance, but I’ll venture to say there is not. Although European history is rampant with wars, trade, and other sources of cultural friction, my guess is ethnic nationalism has gotten in the way of such verbal gymnastics. While there are enough common root words in the Romance languages, the concept of taking another nation’s term would be a form of submission and concession. That’s a totally different vibe from the United States, where there has been far more ethnic and cultural sharing – more collisions that required a resolution.
I’ll also take a cue from Adam himself — that the dominant language of business and growth in Prague is now English, and there are only 20-million Czech speakers in the world. That being the case, it’s easier to import the words with the concepts rather than mix-and-match. I doubt there is a Czech version of “Spanglish” (yet another portmanteau.)
The Old Boru Gemu
If you want an example of wholesale importation, the Japanese have done it. Look at the list of Japanese words to describe the very American sport of baseball. Read them phonetically, and see how they’ve been adopted wholesale:
batta: batter- batta bokkusu: batters box
- besuboru: baseball
- chenji appu: change-up pitch
- daburu pure: double play
- fensu: fence
- furu besu: full bases; bases loaded
- furu kaunto: full count.
- homuran: home run
- pinchi hitta: pinch hitter
- pinchi ranna: pinch runner
- pitcha: pitcher
- pitchingu sutaffu: pitching staff
- ririfu pitcha: relief pitcher
- rukii: rookie
- suitchi hitta: switch hitter
…and that’s just a fraction of the list!
Word Power
Many people like to say America’s strength is a function of its diversity. I think there may be merit to that thought, but lost in the big concept is a key effect: diversity has given us a language that makes it easier to communicate complex thoughts in a quick way. Additionally, those concepts – through the portmanteau – are more likely to become accepted as words in their own right. It’s easier to build on those blocks when there is a foundation of common meaning. “The Economics of Reagan” isn’t as fluid as Reaganomics, and may refer to an entire set of policies that aren’t at the heart of the commonly-understood supply-side components.
That has me worried about any movement that celebrates separatism. Diversity means a mixing, matching, and melding. Some use diversity as a shield, demanding we “respect” their language and culture and dispense with any ideals of inclusion. (This coming from the ugly American with two semesters of college Spanglish on his transcript.)
It already takes years for a word to be accepted into an official lexicon. A nation or a people that is more resistant to outside linguistic influences will likely not be as fluid in growing the language with a similar pace. And a language that lacks the “hooks” for easy concept-mashing acts as a brake on progress when it comes to developing those thoughts at the intersections.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Adam Daniel Mezei, language, baseball[/tags]
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
There’s also the official provincialism of some countries’ governments. France has a bureau to keep the French language pure. While we permit through a linguistic laissez-faire the adoption of words like portmanteau — and laissez-faire, for that matter — French law forbids the equivalent.
It helps that English is itself a mashup, incorporating Latin, French and, um, older English. There’s a great series on the history of the English language from the Teaching Company ( http://www.teach12.com/ ), which I highly recommend for anyone who wants an in-depth discussion. The key is that English isn’t one language going way back. Absorbing new words is an old, old habit, which we still benefit from today.
The French come up with cumbersome French ways of saying things to avoid adopting English words. But to bring a foreign concept into English, we just Anglicize the pronunciation and it’s done.