739: Malamanteau

|< < Prev Comic #739 (May 12, 2010) Next > >|

Malamanteau

Title text: The article has twenty-three citations, one of which is an obscure manuscript from the 1490s and the other twenty-two are arguments on LanguageLog.

DUCK SEX

Transcript

[The strip is set up as the top of a Wikipedia page.]

[The Wikipedia logo.]

Wikipedia

The free encyclopedia

[Side navigation options.]

Navigation

-Main Page

-Contents

-Featured Content

-Current Events

[Wikipedia header options.]

Article Discussion Edit this page History

[The article itself.]

Malamanteau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A malamanteau is a neologism for a portmanteau created by incorrectly combining a malapropism with a neologism. It is itself a portmanteau of [...the article cuts off.]

[Below the panel.]

Ever notice how Wikipedia has a few words it really likes?

DUCK SEX

References

• Entries referencing "malamanteau" at LanguageLog.com
• Malamanteau Talk Page Archives 12 at Wikipedia.com
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malamanteau
• Screen capture of the deleted history for the "Malamanteau" page from Wikipedia
• Wikipedia Log for "Malamanteau"
• Beutler, William (May 5, 2010) "Much Ado About Malamanteau". The Wikipedian
• McKean, Erin (May 30, 2010) "One Day Wonder". The Boston Globe
• R.L.G (Nov 4th 2010) "Eggcorn, mashup, malamanteau or other?". The Economonist
• July 17, 2007 "How to define this language mistake?" - MetaFilter thread with the first usage

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Neologism isn't properly defined in the explanation. A neologism can be any new word; it doesn't have to be made through a combination of other words. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamanteau redirects to xkcd's page last I checked. Wiktionary's page on it was deleted almost 3 years ago. Additionally, the description is missing an explanation for the image text (and maybe the word "portmanteau" should get a definition included). 76.106.251.87 22:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention that the page redirects to xkcd, it's interesting to see the Revision history on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malamanteau&action=history&year=2013) Saibot84 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• <12:44, 26 April 2013>‎ Amalthea (Protected Malamanteau: Repeatedly recreated ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite)))
• <12:43, 26 April 2013>‎ Amalthea (-130) (Revert to revision by Amalthea)
• <11:34, 26 April 2013>‎ IP_77... (+130) (Undid revision by Amalthea, restored the content)
• <13:25, 20 April 2013‎> Amalthea‎ (-130) (In the absence of new reliable sources that can bring this beyond a dictionary entry, I think the consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malamanteau still holds.)
• <13:07, 20 April 2013‎> IP_87... (+130) (restored the content from the comic)
• <22:07, 27 September 2012‎ Scottywong (+18) (redirect to xkcd)
• <unknown date> Page Deleted

I have a feeling that the main point of this comic was that the words "portmanteau" and "neologism" (and maybe even "malapropism") appear disproportionately more on Wikipedia than other references. I certainly would agree with that sentiment. --Quicksilver (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The page is still redirecting to the wikipedia page on xkcd, how long do you think it will be before the original content is restored? Whiskey07 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Never. The page has now been fully, indefinitely protected. Good thing too. NealCruco (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Quicksilver's comment: not only is the comic poking fun at Wikipedia's propensity for using these words, but Randall's comic has created a page relying on almost no content _except_ these sorts of words. 141.101.81.216 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

"and a malapropism of "portmanteau"." I'm a little confused on how that is a malapropism.--172.68.132.35 09:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am quite tempted to add a citation needed note to this sentence: "This is called a meta or "self-referential" joke." Erin Anne (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s great. Or eventually after searching through links entitled to sitewars thisis actually loveable. Knowing annotators basically oppose uncitated terms, picking a really, evidently imaginary disambiguation… Overreaction leaps inevitably athand. Aggressors tend to have explanations similarto ”imaginary terms”. Every other frase known now once was laughable, even droll. Goodly ended arguments sparsely keep winning. Here you afford results earn nice triumphs. To have every reader everywhere searching this article redirected… Sensational! (Jacey) JezebelCeasedToExist (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So, to explain: Get all non-initials. Offload / gently remove. Add punctuation. Herewith you've... "I go east, let's talk about pareidolia. At the site of knowledge, ask why arent there stars?" 172.70.162.155 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(Psst, you are really clever! But could you remove this comment and bring it back in a week? I just don't want it to be immediately spoiled for everyone.) JezebelCeasedToExist (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)