invoking our duty to a joint language legacy. Earlier this year, we
the f/k/a Gang proclaims its dissent over another spawn of “blog” -
– perhaps trying to be a bit too hip and youthful — the Old Gray
Lady becomes an accessory to languicide.
Lisa Belkin’s column builds on one published on April 9th. The
focus is an important and interesting topic: the ability of language to
“make something official” — to “make a phenomenon fully exist.” As
we discuss below, Part I, focused on words that describe the down-
side of being overly-wired into modern technology. (Just yesterday,
Unfortunately, Belkins ended the April 9th post with a request for more
technology-focused neologisms. The result was this paragraph in
today’s column:
“You have names for many other new concepts, too. The longest
list comes from Eve Fox (I can fit only part of it here), a vice presi-
dent for electronic campaigns at M&R Strategic Services in Wash-
ington, who suggests a whole new language. She calls it ‘Blang,’
as in ‘Web language,’ and says it is spoken by ‘Web wraiths’ ¡ª
Tolkienesque creatures (i.e., most of us) who feel chained to their
computers day and night. Other Blang words include:on this web-
site.”
Wonderful: pandemic language abuse, spread through a promiscuous union
of Blog-Speakers with the Terminally Cute & Pop-Culturally Courant. I’m sure
Eve Fox is both very talented and very committed to her ”electronic campaigns”
states:
[W]e have made a conscious decision to work for organizations
whose work we believe in. We are driven by dedication to the
causes we champion in partnership with our clients.”
Perhaps, we humbly suggest, part of that mission should include promoting what
we call An Ethics and Aesthetics of Language Creation. If you want to communicate
with sectors of the public beyond the techno-savvy and the slang-chic (and, yes, that
even means people over 40), you need to use a language that has meaning, roots,
staying power (maybe even beauty).
“soapboxDude”
What’s so bad about the term “blang”? Don’t get me started. It’s bad enough
that the term has all of the deficiencies of its predecessor, blog. But — like blawg
– it also trivializes something that is very dear to me: the English language and its
ability to evolve while promoting understanding across a broad community.
As if reducing “web” to “b” wasn’t bad enough, cleaving the word “language” into
“lang” seems to the f/k/a Gang to be a major linguisitc felony. Beyond that, a
Wikipedia fragment tells us that blang has been used in connection with the
in the comic-book context, as:
BLANG: The sound of a pipe hitting a head.
[The Ren and Stimpy Show vol.1 #6, 1993]
Cheapening the language and smacking us upside the head with a heavy imple-
ment: that about as good a summary as there could be for the so-called word blang.
The f/k/a Gang promises that this is the last posting at this weblog that will use that
neologism. [Naturally, there may be an update or two below, or a reply Comment from
the Management.]
blang update (April 24, 2006): Mark Liberman (co-author of the imminently available
greeing with Lisa Belkins’ notion that you need a “word for X” to understand the concept
X. Today, he has written again about Belkins’ column, this time to reassure Your Editor
that “blang” is highly unlikely to survive its “neo” stage and become a permanent part of
Mark seems to be aware that our Battle of the Blang is not as serious an undertaking
as the war against “blog” or the crusade against “blawg.” f/k/a agrees with much of his
reasoning, and it is naturally always nice to have a well-known linguist on your side
when trying to abort a neologism. However, Mark’s explanation of why “blog” succeeded
is not totally convincing or reassuring:
“For one thing, its referents are relatively concrete and very commonly
referenced: people with web logs felt the need to reference “my web log”
and “X’s web log” and “the growing number of web logs” and so on, many
times a day. For another thing, people talking about web logs often felt
the need to use the term as a modifier (”web-log design”, “web-log software”)
or as a verb (”I haven’t been web-logging very much lately”; “I’m so web-logging
that”). All of those uses are facilitated by a compacted form. And finally, blog
is a clever blended reduction of “weblog”, initially founded on the string-parsing
pun “web log ¡ú we blog”.”
I’m dismayed to hear that a truly ugly word, that sounds like vomiting and gives no signal
to outsiders of its possible meaning, was successful — apparently — because using a two-
syllable noun, adjective or verb was just soooooo onerous for the under-30 crowd of pretend
techno-hipsters who first popularlized it. ”Weblog” just called out for compacting! ”Blang” just might make it, if one syllable at a time is all we can devote to describing new concepts.
As for the “clever blended reduction” that created “blog” from “web;pg” and then “we-blog,”
such cleverness (regretted by its progenitor, Peter Merholz), the cleverness does not make
up for the unfortunate precedent it sets for using one very uncommunicative letter from a root
word in creating a blended word form.
Peter Merholz is probably correct about the reason the word “blog”
stuck: ” ‘Blog’ would have likely died a forgotten death had it not been for
one thing: In August of 1999, Pyra Labs released Blogger. And with that,
the use of “blog” grew with the tool’s success.”
“tinyredcheck” In case it isn’t already obvious, please let me repeat: Your Editor is not against
the creation of new words, and often engages in the practice. He is against the
creation of new words that can only be understood by a small circle of the anointed,
because the words have no obvious linguistic roots in our language. When they also
sound and look ugly, they do indeed violate our duties to our language legacy.
The earlier Belkins NYT column (April 9, 2006), focuses on words created by
Overbooked and About to Snap! Strategies for Coping in a World Gone A.D.D.” (Ballan-
tine Books, 2006). Belkins writes:
“The frenzy of our wired world, [Hallowell] argues, is giving nearly all of us the
symptoms of attention deficit disorder. To conquer the enemy, he says, we first
need to name it.”
Belkins presents a number of Halloway’s suggestions:, including:
“Screensucking, which he defines as “wasting time engaging with any screen ¡ª
for instance, computer, video game, television, BlackBerry.” He goes on to use
his new word in a sentence: “I was supposed to write that article, but instead I
spent the whole afternoon screensucking.” That concept hits particularly close
to home.
who hasn’t suffered recently (or chronically) from:
Gemmelsmerch. “The force that distracts the mind or steals it away from
what it wants to do or ought to be doing.”
due by April 30), which is explained at the CrazyBusy website::
Take a few minutes to move into creative mode and join our CrazyBusy
Word Contest! Think of new words that describe your CrazyBusy life -
or comment on others’ ideas. The authors of the top 20 words by April
30th will receive a free copy of “CrazyBusy” signed by Dr. Hallowell and h
ave their words featured on this site. Go to “Word Contest” in the main
There’s lots more to say, but my anti-Gemmelsmerch pill is finally kicking in. If you
are in need of haiku sustenance right about now, you are in luck:
Communication at California State University):
early spring
before she can tie it
the balloon escapes
.
in the park
my dog fetches
a better stick
brushing her horse
the young girl’s hair
back and forth
werewolf movie
at the commercial
letting the dog out
prostate exam
the doctor and I
trade jabs
long day
his finger slows
the spinning globe
“werewolf movie” - HSA Brady Award — Second Place 2001
“long day” - Two Autumns Reading (San Francisco, 2003)
A House Call from “Dr. Bill” Owen (Professor of
