the archives of f/k/a . . .

 

Quick Summary:  Lawyers don’t need a special word to

designate their weblogs.  Weblog technology is not being

used in any special way at law sites.  No other group or

profession has coined a special word for their category

of weblogs.  By insisting on using the trivializing, confusing

and too-cute word “blawg,” lawyers appear to be elitist, clan-

nish, or childish (likely, all three).  Those who agree can help

stop the terminology from becoming a generally-accepted

part of the English language (and spread worldwide), by not

using the term “blawg” and by declaring their choice publically.

 

 

“Whether or not a neologism continues

as part of the language depends on many

factors, probably the most important of which

is acceptance by the public.”

                                     WikiWhat / Answers.com

 

“Words become obsolete or archaic for any

number of Reasons.”

                        Christopher Orlet - Existential Journalist

 

 

 

Dear Blawg Review Editor:

 

I’ve come to know you as an articulate lover of the English language. 

As far as I know, you don’t say “lawgic” or “lawnguage,” drink “lawtte,” 

bill clawents, or use Blawk’s Dictionary. You don’t call lazy associates

 ”slawkers,”  and have yet to dub Jack Abramoff a “lawbbyist.”

 

You’re usually a skeptic and no fan of “cute.”  If linguists called their

weblogs “blings” (or argonauts called theirs “blargs”), you’d probably 

smirk.  But, no other group uses such verbal oddities in classifying their

weblogs.  So, Ed, why do you, and other otherwise-serious members of

the legal community, refer to law-oriented weblogs as “blawgs?”  Why

take an insider pun by a popular lawyer-webdiva (which should have been

passed around and admired briefly as a witty one-off) and help perpet-

uate it?

 

                                                                                           ….blawg

 

In a recent posting (Old Lawyers Have Web Logs), you defended using

the word “blawg” by saying:

-  it “helps communicate the thought”

-  “blog is in the dictionary and “blawg” will soon be, too

- ”blawg .. now has almost two million references on Google”

- “the word blawg is pronounced the same as the word blog,

     so there is absolutely no confusion in oral communication

 

 

- “In the written word, blawg is easily intelligible and conveys

     additional meaning to readers and to search engines.”

- ”So, if you encounter someone who doesn’t know what blawg

       means, kindly tell them to google it.

Let’s take your points on the word blawg one by one:

 

 It “helps communicate the thought”  That simply doesn’t appear to

be true.  Most members of the public are far more likely to think its

a take-off on the incredibly overused “dawg” for dog, rather than a

reference to law-related weblogs.  Insiders know what it is, outsiders

do not and are very likely to view it as adolescent jargon.

 

  blog is in the dictionary and “blawg” will soon be, too — (a) the point

of this Letter is to show that it is not inevitable nor desirable that

“blawg” become a permanent part of the language; and (b) there are

a lot of nonsense words in the dictionary, but there’s no good reason

why discerning people — especially those who make their living by

artfully employing words – use such words.

 

  ”blawg .. now has almost two million references on Google”  This proves

virtually nothing (and note: today there were 1, 510,000 results).  The

top ten results today are instructive.  Eight of the first 9 are for entities

that have a stake in breaking law-related weblogs off from the rest of

the blogiverse.  The other is by law students.  The tenth result suggests

that Nancy Stinson has named her Stark County Law Library weblog a

“blawg,”which is not true. [By the way, there are 2,740,000 results for

"dawg" today at Google.  Should p/i lawyers start looking for dawg-bite

clients?]

 

 

  “the word blawg is pronounced the same as the word blog, so there

is absolutely no confusion in oral communication –  Just like there’s no

confusion when we speak of “aural” communication?  Frankly, I was

surprised to read that you pronounce “blog” and “blawg” in the same

way (as, apparently, does Trevor Hill).  That underscores the notion

that the word is just an insider gimmick, because the two words don’t

need to be homophones. Merriam-Webster online, for example, does not

pronounce “blog” in a manner that makes it homophonic with “blawg.”   

At M-W, the “o” in “blog” is pronounced like the “o” in mop, which is

quite distinct from the “aw” in “law.”

\

Comments Off

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.