The morphology of the word Irangate.

[Rezia]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irangate

Irangate.
A scandal occurring during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran and illegally used the profits to continue funding an army of rebels in Nicaragua.

    The problem here concerns the morphological analysis of the word "Irangate". What are the immediate constituents of the word in question? Whether they are two root morphemes or a root morpheme and a suffix. What is the way to treat "gate" as a suffix or as a root morpheme?

The pros for a suffix :
it is given as a suffix in the dictionary, as a word-building element attached to anything.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=watergate&searchmode=none
-gate 
suffix attached to anything to indicate "scandal involving," 1973, abstracted from Watergate, Washington, D.C., building complex, home of the National Headquarters of the Democratic Party when it was burglarized June 17, 1972.

The pros for a root morpheme:
it is a root morpheme in the word "Watergate" which is a proper name and in its turn comes from a compound noun "water-gate". So this element "gate"  possesses certain lexical meaning.

[Elik]

I wouldn't call -gate a suffix. Irangate is just an occasional neologism which deliberately resembles the word Watergate hinting that the Iranian affair is a political scandal.

Just compare the name of the famous film Star Gate. No scandal involved...

To my humble knowledge, there are no more "-gates" except Watergate and Irangate. If you know any more gates, let ne know.

[Seryj Slon]

And what is your own point of view then?
I believe that since the condominium`s name "Watergate" has been declined enough, it became a common noun which parts can be treated as suffices. "Watergate" is khown as the only scandal in a class by itself linked with the violating of the electoral rights by ruling party. That is, the word "irangate" is a word formed by the mass-media so to indicate the link between the incident and the watergate scandal.

[Elik]

My own point of view is that we can't call -gate a suffix yet, because it is not too productive so far. When you tell me about a dozen more -gates, I would think of calling it a suffix.

[Seryj Slon]

Yes, we -- as soon as we are not mass-media -- can`t treat it so, but they don`t ask others when the it`s a question of big stir and the profit from selling papers with flashy headers 

[Rezia]

I thank the participants. The strong point against -gate being a suffix is its unproductiveness, of course. On the other hand, the semantic unity and meaning - the name of a building - which is different from that of its compound originator and also the solid spelling of the name "Watergate" , these facts may pretend to give -gate the status of a suffix.

[Laplandian]

Just compare the name of the famous film Star Gate. No scandal involved...

BTW, the movie was called Stargate, but obviously in that case there was no political connotation - it's spelled as a single word because it's a name of a device (the mysterious teleporting wheel).

[Rezia]

So "gate" is actually a part of some words. Well, in "gateway" it is a root morpheme.