{"id":4329,"date":"2006-01-19T15:47:07","date_gmt":"2006-01-19T19:47:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/lets-make-the-word-blawg-obsolete\/"},"modified":"2010-02-03T09:38:48","modified_gmt":"2010-02-03T14:38:48","slug":"lets-make-the-word-blawg-obsolete","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/lets-make-the-word-blawg-obsolete\/","title":{"rendered":"let’s make the word “blawg” obsolete"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Quick Summary<\/strong>:<\/em> Lawyers don’t need a special word to <\/em><\/div>\n
designate their weblogs.\u00a0 Weblog technology\u00a0is not being <\/em><\/div>\n
used in any special way at law sites.\u00a0 No other group or <\/em><\/div>\n
profession has\u00a0coined a special word for their category <\/em><\/div>\n
of weblogs.\u00a0 By insisting on\u00a0using the trivializing, confusing <\/em><\/div>\n
and too-cute word “blawg,” lawyers appear to be\u00a0elitist, clan-<\/em><\/div>\n
nish, or childish (likely, all three).\u00a0 Those who agree\u00a0can help <\/em><\/div>\n
stop the terminology from becoming a generally-accepted <\/em><\/div>\n
part of the English language (and spread worldwide), by not <\/em><\/div>\n
using the term “blawg” and by declaring their choice publically.<\/em><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\"umpireS\"<\/div>\n

<\/span><\/span> “Whether or not a neologism <\/em>continues <\/em><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

as part of the language depends on many <\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
factors, probably the <\/em>most important of which <\/em><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
is acceptance by the public.”<\/em> <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/span>WikiWhat<\/span><\/a> \/ <\/span>Answers.com<\/span><\/em><\/a><\/em><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
\n
\n
“Words become obsolete or archaic for any <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
number <\/span>of Reasons.”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/span>Christopher Orlet<\/span><\/a> – <\/span>Existential Journalist<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Dear<\/span><\/a> <\/span>Blawg Review<\/span><\/em><\/a> Ed<\/em>itor: <\/span><\/div>\n
I’ve come to know you as an articulate lover of the English language. <\/span><\/div>\n
As far as I know, you don’t say “lawgic” or “lawnguage,”\u00a0drink “lawtte,” <\/span><\/div>\n
bill clawents, or use Blawk<\/em>‘s Dictionary<\/em>. You don’t call lazy associates<\/span><\/div>\n
“slawkers,”\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0have yet to\u00a0dub Jack Abramoff a “lawbbyist.” <\/span><\/div>\n

\n<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
You’re usually a skeptic and no fan of “cute.”\u00a0 If linguists called <\/span>their <\/span><\/div>\n
weblogs “blings”\u00a0(or argonauts called theirs “blargs”), you’d <\/span>probably <\/span><\/div>\n
smirk.\u00a0 But, no other group uses such verbal oddities in\u00a0classifying their <\/span><\/div>\n
weblogs. \u00a0So, <\/span>Ed<\/em>, why do you, and other otherwise-serious members of <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
the legal <\/span><\/span>community, refer to\u00a0law-oriented weblogs as “blawgs?”\u00a0 Why <\/span><\/div>\n
take an insider <\/span>pun <\/span>by a popular lawyer-webdiva (which should have been <\/span><\/div>\n
passed around and <\/span>admired briefly as a\u00a0witty one-off) and help perpetuate it?<\/span><\/div>\n

\n<\/span><\/div>\n
\"erasingSF\" ….blawg<\/em><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

In a recent posting (<\/span>Old Lawyers Have Web Logs<\/span><\/a>), you\u00a0defended using <\/span><\/div>\n
the word “blawg” by saying:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
–\u00a0 it “helps communicate the thought” <\/span><\/div>\n
–\u00a0 “blog is in the dictionary and “blawg” will soon be, too <\/span><\/div>\n
–\u00a0“blawg .. now has almost two million references on Google”<\/span><\/div>\n
– “the word blawg is pronounced the same as the word blog, <\/span><\/div>\n
so there is absolutely no confusion in oral communication<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
\"dictionaryG\"<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
– “In the written word, blawg is easily intelligible and conveys <\/span><\/div>\n
additional meaning to readers and to search engines.”<\/span><\/div>\n
–\u00a0“So, if you encounter someone who doesn’t know what blawg <\/span><\/div>\n
means, kindly tell them to <\/span>google it<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Let’s take your points on the word blawg<\/em> one by one:<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
\"tiny It “helps communicate the thought”<\/em> That simply doesn’t appear to<\/span><\/div>\n
be true.\u00a0 Most members of the public are far more likely to think its <\/span><\/div>\n
a take-off on the incredibly overused “dawg” for dog, rather\u00a0than a <\/span><\/div>\n
reference to law-related weblogs.\u00a0 Insiders know what it is, outsiders<\/span><\/div>\n
do not and are very likely to view it as adolescent jargon.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/span><\/div>\n
\"tiny blog is in the dictionary and “blawg” will soon be, too<\/em> — (a) the point<\/span><\/div>\n
of this Letter is to show that it is not inevitable nor desirable that <\/span><\/div>\n
“blawg” become a permanent part of the language; and (b) there are <\/span><\/div>\n
a lot of nonsense words in the dictionary, but there’s no good reason <\/span><\/div>\n
why discerning people — especially those who make their living by <\/span><\/div>\n
artfully\u00a0employing words —\u00a0use such words.<\/span><\/div>\n
\"tiny “blawg .. now has almost two million references on Google”<\/em> This proves <\/span><\/div>\n
virtually nothing (and note: today there were 1, 510,000 <\/span>results<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0 The <\/span><\/div>\n
top ten results today are instructive.\u00a0\u00a0Eight of the first 9 are for entities <\/span><\/div>\n
that have a stake in breaking law-related weblogs off from the rest of <\/span><\/div>\n
the blogiverse.\u00a0 The other is by law students.\u00a0 The tenth result suggests <\/span><\/div>\n
that Nancy Stinson has named her Stark County Law Library<\/em> weblog a <\/span><\/div>\n
“blawg,”which is <\/span>not true<\/span><\/a>. [By the way, there are 2,740,000 results for <\/span><\/div>\n
“<\/span>dawg<\/span><\/a>” today at Google.\u00a0 Should p\/i lawyers start looking for dawg-bite <\/span><\/div>\n
clients?]<\/span><\/div>\n
\"dog<\/span><\/div>\n
\"tiny “the word blawg is pronounced the same as the word blog, <\/em>so there <\/em><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
is absolutely no confusion in oral communication” — <\/em>Just like there’s no <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
confusion when we speak of “aural” communication?\u00a0 Frankly, I was <\/span><\/div>\n
surprised to read that you pronounce “blog” and “blawg” in the same <\/span><\/div>\n
way (as, apparently,\u00a0does <\/span>Trevor Hill<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0 That underscores the notion <\/span><\/div>\n
that the word is just an insider gimmick, because the two words don’t <\/span><\/div>\n
need <\/em>to be homophones. Merriam-Webster online, for example, does not <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
pronounce “blog” in a manner that makes it homophonic with “blawg.” <\/span><\/div>\n
At M-W<\/em>, the “o” in <\/span>“blog” is pronounced<\/span><\/a> like the “o” in <\/span>mo<\/strong>p<\/span><\/a>, which is <\/span><\/div>\n
quite distinct from the “aw” in “law.”<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
follow-up<\/strong><\/em>: See our January 24, 2006 post “speak blawg?<\/a>” for a linguistic look at such blended words.
\n<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Quick Summary: Lawyers don’t need a special word to designate their weblogs.\u00a0 Weblog technology\u00a0is not being used in any special way at law sites.\u00a0 No other group or profession has\u00a0coined a special word for their category of weblogs.\u00a0 By insisting on\u00a0using the trivializing, confusing and too-cute word “blawg,” lawyers appear to be\u00a0elitist, clan- nish, or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4329","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P6kP1R-17P","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4329"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4329\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11175,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4329\/revisions\/11175"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}