I'd say your intuition is probably correct. It's definitely not a blend - which is just the technical term for a portmanteau word - which is to say, it's derived from phonological units, not from separable morphemes, and it conveys a different semantic but related content from either of its source words.
That's not the case with "f'real." The morphemes are easily identifiable. Classic examples of blends include words like "smog" or "brunch."
Nor is it an affixation in any readily perceptible sense. Whether it's a clitic or just a phonological contraction of the separate preposition is really what the question is, but since fully distinct determiners count as proclitics in English I, personally, don't see why a preposition couldn't be.
The morphology at UW was nonexistent, though, and the syntax department was totally dominated by Chomskyans (I love the man's politics, but I hate his science), so I have to confess to being a little weak in the areas that would enable me to answer that definitively. But, as I say, I think you're right.
That's not the case with "f'real." The morphemes are easily identifiable. Classic examples of blends include words like "smog" or "brunch."
Nor is it an affixation in any readily perceptible sense. Whether it's a clitic or just a phonological contraction of the separate preposition is really what the question is, but since fully distinct determiners count as proclitics in English I, personally, don't see why a preposition couldn't be.
The morphology at UW was nonexistent, though, and the syntax department was totally dominated by Chomskyans (I love the man's politics, but I hate his science), so I have to confess to being a little weak in the areas that would enable me to answer that definitively. But, as I say, I think you're right.