Why can't people properly combine words?

Cockapoos have a name that violates my rule for combining words and my sensibilities.

In an age of burgeoning mass media and 24-hour news, companies are vying for the attention of customers and potential subscribers. One of the methods employed by these parties is the generation of catchy new words. Adding letters or numbers (iPhone 4S), re-spelling words (Wii U), or mashing multiple words into one (Groupon or Comcast) are the common ways to create these words. Here, I am going to act as the Word Mashing Police and explain why the best new words are formed from combining words according to my easy-to-follow rule.

The Rule: The two original words must be combined at a vowel with the same sound, not the same consonant or the same vowel by spelling--vowel sound when it's said. For example, if you see an awesome sunset, you can call it an "awesunset". If something is freaking easy, you can say it's "freasy". If you are selling group coupons, you are selling "groupons". See, successful companies follow my rule.

Words that are formed from combining two words actually have a name. "Portmanteau" is a "word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms" according to Merriam-Webster. There are no real rules for making them, and people tend to simply jam two or more words together willy-nilly without a thought about the people interpreting the new words. I would argue that my rule makes it easier to understand the meaning of the new word without the context.

Let's look at some examples that work. Who is part of Brangelina? Brad + Angelina. Bennifer? Ben + Jennifer (Lopez or Garner--I don't know what either saw/sees in him). Is somebody your friend and enemy? Frenemies. Documentary that mocks? Mockumentary. What would you call a mix of a frappe and cappuccino? What would you call a radar-like ability to sense who is gay? Cars jammed up, bringing the end of the world (to people in LA)? Texting about sex? Internet etiquette? Bombay's Hollywood? Romantic comedy about guys as close as bros? Hacker who is an activist? Frappuccino, gaydar, Camageddon, sexting, netiquette, Bollywood, bromance. (I admit that I hadn't made the Bombay Hollywood connection until I read it, but I bet it'll be easier to remember where in India Bollywood is now if you didn't know.) These portmanteaus all follow the rule. As you may note, it's even better if the entirety of one word can be included. The advantage of this type of portmanteau is that a person is more likely to be able to infer the original two words without knowing the context and thus have a better chance of immediately understanding the meaning. There are even some companies that know how to do it right. A name like "Groupon" is easy to figure out: Group + coupon. Cinemax: Cinema + maximum. See, it's freasy!

Wikipedia provides some other company names that I consider lesser portmanteaus. You thought Comcast and Verizon were bad at providing good service at a reasonable price; they also are bad at following my rule. Take a guess at what words are the basis of those two companies' names. According to Wikipedia, Comcast is formed from combining "communications" and "broadcast" (but literally translated, comcast would be "to throw with", adding a layer of confusion). Verizon is a combination of "veritas", which means "truth", and "horizon". I'm pretty sure "veritas" is not pronounced "ver-eye-toss". Accenture? Accent + future. If you didn't immediately deduce these words from the brand names, I would argue that they are vastly inferior portmanteaus. They may as well have created completely new words. Comcast should have just called itself "Theworst" or "Customerhater" so we can really understand what the company is.

I also have issues with a number of other portmanteaus that have made it into common usage. While I enjoy a good brunch (I like any breakfast that includes non-breakfast elements), I'm not a fan of the word. I cringe when people say "linner", especially because it's so easy to just call it "lupper" (lunch + supper). Yeah, we can argue about the difference between dinner and supper, but they are the same to me. I think sporks are a genius invention but think the name is stupid. Skorts: glad they didn't really catch on so we don't have to say that word any more. Everybody hates smog, and you should hate the word as well. It's supposedly smoke + fog--and no, it doesn't work just because of the "o" sound, which is long in one word and short in the other, just like spoon + fork doesn't work. Same goes for Jeggings: you should hate the word and the item. I've used the term ginormous but will try to avoid it in the future because it is redundant and violates my rule. Chillax is also redundant and super lame.

People also like to tack the names of different languages onto the word "English" to describe speaking a mix of the two: Chinglish, Spanglish, Franglish. Ugh. I understand the need for words describing these blends, and I even think it's incredibly appropriate to combine the two words to describe a mixing of two languages. However, they don't flow off my tongue like Hinglish (Hindi), Singlish (Singaporean), or even Swahinglish (Swahili), though that last one is borderline. I will make an exception to the rule for languages because the portmanteaus formed are so perfectly apropos. However, I cannot extend the same exception to dog breeds. I understand that dog breeders are limited by the actual breeds they marry, but I am not a fan of the names "puggle" (is that a mix between a pug and a muggle?), "labradoodle", and "cockapoo" (even if this name did follow the rule, why would call something you want somebody to love cockapoo?). I say give the dogs some dignity and call them mutts or half breeds. Or dodgepodge? Canybrid (long "a" sound)?

I will conclude by saying that if you find yourself cramming two words together that don't follow my strict rule, you should consider abortmanteau'ing and just using two words.