Talk:Infoshop
Add topicLatest comment: 8 months ago by ~2025-35277-41 in topic notable
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infoshop article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
portmanteau
[edit]- An infoshop (the word being a portmanteau of information and shop)
I changed "portmanteau" to "contraction"; this was reverted with the comment "see portmanteau". So I saw portmanteau. In nearly every example there (or in List of portmanteaus), neither component word is wholly preserved. The word in question could as easily be written info shop (info being a well established word) and no one would call that a portmanteau. —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hiya yes I suppose the question for me would be ... is portmanteau correct if only one word is contracted. Would you prefer to use compound? I don't think contraction is quite correct because of what it says at portmanteau:
contractions are formed from words that would otherwise appear together in sequence, such as do and not to make don't
Mujinga (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hiya yes I suppose the question for me would be ... is portmanteau correct if only one word is contracted. Would you prefer to use compound? I don't think contraction is quite correct because of what it says at portmanteau:
notable
[edit]i see mostly UK, not a single DE like Berlin. btw, Grote Broek is/was a squat, the shop is/was called assata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35277-41 (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)