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.”
“Words become obsolete or archaic for any
number of Reasons.”
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
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
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.”
quite distinct from the “aw” in “law.”
\ ä \ as o in mop - example: listen to pronunciation of
\ 
\ as aw in law - also, listen to pronunciation of
I believe most “blawgers” pronounce the words blawg and blog differ-
ently — otherwise, making the distinction seems pointless. If one has
to pronounce them the same way for the uninitiated to understand what
you are talking about, you are making my confusion argument for me.
“In the written word, blawg is easily intelligible and conveys addi-
tional meaning to readers and to search engines.” First, see the reply
above to your “helps communicate the thought” argument. Next, few
people in the real world care about making search engines happy. Of
course, if you are a law-related weblog that does not choose to use the
word “blawg,” you might not want search engines to be quite so focused.
”So, if you encounter someone who doesn’t know what blawg means,
kindly tell them to google it.” I hope this is one of your frequent uses of
irony or hyperbole, Ed. If not, it is amazingly boorish, elitist, smug and
arrogant — just the sort of attitude lawyers are accused of having toward
nonlawyers. It also shows a parochial lack of knowledge about the ken
and the priorities of the non-blogging public. Most non-bloggers still have
only the foggiest notion of what a “blog” is (outside of perhaps knowing it
has something to do with the internet). To expect that they have kept up
with little wrinkles like the specialist terminology surrounding “blawgs” (or
should be expected to do so) is simply myopic self-absorption.
In 2003, talking about the word “blog,” Jerry Lawson of fedlawyers.org
opined that it “makes this powerful new form of Internet communication
seem trivial.” (see our essay “the word blog“). We think that “blawg”
increases the triviality factor significantly, in addition to adding needless
confusion of terms and a heedless aura of lawyer separatism-elitism.
In most circles, Denise Howell’s pun “blawg” would
have received due praise for its creativity and humor, gotten
passed around a bit, and then be filed away (until its letter-
substitution trick was ”discovered” again by some other
weblog owner). But, with the confluence of techie-geek-
uniqueness syndrome and lawyer fondness for archane,
insider jargon, it got overused. Now, as adolescents
know happens with all cliquish in-speak, it has now gotten
old, embarrassing and in the way.
2005) said:
“Is there any other profession or industry that thinks they
are so special they need a word other than blog to call their
blogs? … Lawyers ought to use a little common sense. They
should not only stop using the terms blawg and blawgs but
also suggest that other lawyers stop using the terms. . .
“Using ‘blawg’ confuses the public, sends the signal lawyers
think they are special and that lawyers always want to use
‘legalese’ to keep legal information away from the masses.
Let’s make blawg a thing of the past.”
In responding to Kevin, Tom Mighell of Inter Alia commented
[emphasis added]:
I use “blawg” not because I think it’s special, but because it’s
unique. I don’t think uniqueness is a quality to be ashamed of.
I haven’t had any trouble explaining that there really is no dis-
tinction, any more than I have had explaining the terms “pod-
casting” or “RSS.” And if someone thinks the term blawg is
“legalese,” then that person probably wasn’t going to get it
anyway.
So I’ll probably continue to use “blawg,” hoping that the public
will see the distinction more as a clever turn of phrase than as
the typical lawyer ego. At least, I’d like to give them that much
credit.
Wanting to be “unique” (although there “is no distinction”) and hoping
the public will “get it” as “a clever turn of phrase” are simply not good
enough reasons for using this divisive, confusing terminology. It makes
us want to ask: “Is there anything being done at law weblogs that is not
being done at other kinds of weblogs (by students, teachers, or practi-
tioners of other professions, or experts in other bodies of knowledge)?”
We don’t think so. The only difference is “hey, we’ve got, or are getting,
law degrees, and that makes us sooooooo unique we need a special
name for our internet technology platform” Convinced?
“DeniseMug”
When we debated weblog jargon back at BloggerCon2003, Denise Howell,
who coined the term “blawg,” disagreed with my feeling that using special
insider-speak contradicted the growing Plain English (Plawn Englawsh?)
movement, which strives to rid legal writing and communications of legalese.
Denise Howell: I also think the analogy to incomprehensible legal
jargon is misplaced. There, the problem is largely the opposite of
what we’re talking about here. Instead of “new tools, new terms,”
you’ve got “ancient concepts, antiquated terms.”
A big reason people have a hard time understanding “legalese” is
the terms and usages did not develop organically as a part of modern
language. … Is there a parallel for this in the technical arena? You
bet. Are terms like “blog,” “blawg,” etc. examples? Not as I see it.
DAG: The fact that Legal Speak had to be purged of ancient and foreign
language does not make its de-mystification process irrelevant to this
issue — using plain English helps outsiders understand better. Using
unfamiliar language, especially lots of it, whether old, new, foreign or
extraplanetary, does not.
Of course,”blawg” did not develop “organically” and is not clear expression.
It’s also not extraordinarily creative. [”Hey, there’s an “L” followed by a vowel,
just like in the words “law” and ‘lawyer’. Let’s substitute “aw” for the vowel
in the middle of “blog.” You don’t have to be Ben Franklin to think this one
up — just smart and playful.]
Neolawgism? The WikiWhat discussion of neologisms (also found at
Answers.com) has helpful information on when a newly-coined word is
likely to be accepted into the language. [The bracketed commentary is
by yours truly.]
A neologism “can imply the use of old words in a new sense (i.e.,
giving new meanings to existing words or phrases). Neologisms are
especially useful in identifying new inventions, new phenomena, or
old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context.” [”blawg” offers
no “new sense” or use for “blog,” other than its proprietor or topic.
When naming a tool, our language doesn’t usually differentiate who
is using it — e.g., we don’t have “telawphones” or ”telephysiciones,”
nor do we have “lawbraries” or “medbraries”. When needed, adjectives
do that job quite well.]
“Neologisms often become accepted parts of the language. Other times,
however, they disappear from common usage. 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.” [Shall we survey the
public on what a “blawg” is and whether they use the term?]
“After being coined, neologisms invariably undergo scrutiny by the public
and by linguists to determine their suitability to the language. Many are
accepted very quickly; others attract opposition. Language experts some-
times object to a neologism on the grounds that a suitable term for the thing
described already exists in the language. Non-experts who dislike the neo-
logism sometimes also use this argument, deriding the neologism as “abuse
and ignorance of the language.” [no comment needed]
Some neologisms … often objected to on the grounds that they obscure
the issue being discussed . . [no comment needed]
Proponents of a neologism see it as being useful, and also helping the language
to grow and change; often they perceive these words as being a fun and creative
way to play with a language. [”Useful”? Nope. “fun and creative” — not very.
Linguists may sometimes delay acceptance, for instance by refusing to include
the neologism in dictionaries; this can sometimes cause a neologism to die out
over time. Nevertheless if the public continues to use the term, it always eventually
sheds its status as a neologism and enters the language even over the objections
of language experts.
“Blawg” is clearly still in the Unstable phase, “being used only by a very small subculture.”
That means we still can prevent its broader diffusion and acceptance. Of course, each
lawyer weblogger has the Right to use the term “blawg.” But he or she also has the
Freedom of Choice, and the common sense, to reconsider the appropriateness of insider,
separatist jargon that has outserved its very limited original usefulness (viz., making the
early users of weblogs want to spread the gospel within the legal community).
blawg . . . 
We at f/k/a want to urge those who currently use the term, to abort “blawg” before it
develops into a full-fledged member of the English language — letting it fade into obscurity
and obsolescence (except, in old archives, as a reminder of the heady days when a
small clique loved Denise’s pun and being a lawyer weblogger was indeed rare, special
and fun).
Ed, Blawg Review could be a shining, high-profile example of the movement away from
“blawg.” A change to Law Blog Review (the terminology used in naming your Awards
last month) or, even better, Law Weblog Review (eschewing that ugly little four-letter
word), would make an important statement about the legal community’s belief that it
is a serious member of the broader weblog community, rather than either a self-pro-
claimed elite or outsiders.
your f/k/a Editor promised back in 2003 to purge the word blawg
“from my dictionary, glossary and ken.” I make that pledge again
today, except — of course — when crusading against the use of the
terminology or referring to the proper name of a website or other
such entity.
p.p.s. Some have asked, “Well, what should we call law-oriented
blogs?” We’re tempted to say, “If you need our help, resign now
from the bar, the bench, or law school.” But, our better spirits say:
Use an appropriate adjective, adjectival phrase, or possessive, for
each weblog or class of them.
Descriptive terms that come to mind include, “law,” ”lawyer,
law
student,” “[subject] law,” ”judge” and “judicial”, “law reform,” “legal
research,” etc. But, you knew that. If the entire nonlawyer world
has the diligence and fortitude to add the extra syllables, so do you.
update (Jan. 20, 2006): The Editor of Blawg Review has responded
to this posting by acting as if the issue were whether one has a
right to make new words. (Blawg Review, “who let the blawgs out?”,
Jan. 20, 2006). Sure, everyone has the “right” to coin a “word.”
Our point is, of course, that all words are not created equal and that
“blawg” fails virtually all of the tests for a word that is worth keeping
and, more important, worth using (especially by a profession accused
so often of using words that confuse and set it apart). .
“ScarecrowHaikuN” Having set up the Neologist Rights Strawman,
Ed fails to respond to the issues we have raised (except
to suggest. by citing only a headline, that law firms use the
word “blawg” more than ever — a fact not supported, or even
broached, by the article he cites, which merely says law firms
The internet has made it far easier than ever to quickly spread the use
of neologisms — especially throughout subcultures. It also, however,
allows for the spread of contrary opinions about the usesfulness of a
word — to help other lay persons, as well as linguists, draw conclusions
about the new word. Clearly, those whose activities or identities are
being categorized as falling within the scope of a neologism, such as
“blawg,” have every right to voice their opinion about the nomenclature.
(like dear Old Ed) seems to confuse “the rise of blawgs by lawyers wishing
to promote their practices” with an increased acceptance of “blawg” termin-
ology. Perhaps, they both attended the Strawman Night School of Legal
Advocacy.
update (Jan. 27, 2005): Denise Howell, coiner of “blawg” and still
one of our very favorite persons in the entire blogiverse, has a piece
without ever linking to this post or naming me (I did send her an
email about it last week when it was posted), that
Tyler, the original “baggage”: 
“If you are among the folks — linguists excluded; it’s their
job — who might be spending a little too much thought and
energy on this borderline microbial issue, please consider
channeling your efforts toward something of more tangible
benefit to mankind.”
As I suggested above, however, this crusade is worthwhile for me —
if only as a test case — as an attempt to use the very internet that
spawns awkward and inappropriate neologisms to keep them from
becoming widely used and accepted. UPenn’s Benjamin Zimmer,
as Denise points out, “doesn’t consider use of ‘blawg’ to be a cause
for alarm,” because “context is key.” However, in an email to me,
he clarified his understanding that the term is not confusing to those
who are likely to encounter it, because it is mainly used within the law/
lawyer weblog community. With law weblogs being touted as ways to
reach the public as marketing tools, the term may soon jump out of
that insider culture. I’m hoping that it won’t. Just as linguists would
almost certainly not enjoy their weblogs being widely known as
“blings,” lawyer webloggers who don’t not want the “blawg” label,
have every right to broadcast their opinion.
Of course, there may be other more personal reasons
for my staying on this topic. Here’s a little self-psycho-
analysis:
(1) Perhaps this issue is important to me because I’ve
seen first-hand what happens when an illness is given
a named that seems to trivialize it – try Googling
(2) Or, maybe I have not yet gotten over being delisted
service. (even today, when this post appeared in their Top 20
List, only the URL was given, no title or weblog name). And,
(3) Of course, as a lawyer on a mission, I can’t help but
respond to each rebuttal to my arguments — even when
I surely do have better things to do.
Kevin O’Keefe’s post and this one (as well as the defense by the Editor
by reiterating his position on the word “blawg:”
“Not only does the indiscriminate use of the word “blawg”
lead to obscurity, but it gives readers the unintended impres-
sion that the weblog writer is running a private club.”
Evan received quite a few dissenting Comments, including one from
the well-known Jargon Sheriff, Monica Bay, who stated:
“. . . i don’t mind blawg.
“Why: because it adds meaning to blog. It accurately
describes a specific thing. You see “blawg” and you
know that it is a law-related blog. It defines, it narrows,
and it doesn’t obfuscate.”
Monica, I don’t agree that “blawg” adds significant meaning.
If your audience already knows the proprietor is in the law
community or the topic is law, it adds nothing. If they don’t
know that, just tell them, rather than using a word that does
confuse the uninitiated, and can refer to anything from the
and the major essays of Judge Posner.
Judge Posner.
Of course, I should have added that “blawg” is also applied to both the
personal diaries of law students and the topical legal and political
Come back to the fold, Dear Scold.
update (11 PM, Jan. 31): Last Friday, Dennis Kennedy pointed to a
post by Edwin Jacobs, at his
