{"id":4330,"date":"2006-01-19T16:08:26","date_gmt":"2006-01-19T20:08:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/01\/19\/we-should-make-the-word-blawg"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:14","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:14","slug":"we-should-make-the-word-blawg-obsolete","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/01\/19\/we-should-make-the-word-blawg-obsolete\/","title":{"rendered":"we should make the word “blawg” obsolete"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

I just posted a lengthy essay on the above<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
topic.  It’s in the form of an Open Letter to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Editor<\/A> of Blawg Review<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>.    <\/FONT> Go here<\/FONT><\/A>. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
This is the opening:  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
“Whether or not a neologism <\/EM>continues <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
as part of the language depends on many <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
factors, probably the <\/EM>most important of which <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is acceptance by the public.”<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                     <\/FONT><\/FONT>WikiWhat<\/FONT><\/A> \/ <\/FONT>Answers.com<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/EM> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Words become obsolete or archaic for any <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
number <\/SPAN>of Reasons.”<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                        <\/FONT>Christopher Orlet<\/FONT><\/A> – <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
                          <\/FONT>Existential Journalist<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/STRONG><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
Dear<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT>Blawg Review<\/FONT><\/EM> Editor [“Ed<\/EM>“]: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
I’ve come to know you as an articulate lover of the English language.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
As far as I know, you don’t say “lawgic” or “lawnguage,” drink “lawtte,”  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
bill clawents, or use Blawk<\/EM>‘s Dictionary<\/EM>. You don’t call lazy associates<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 “slawkers,”  and have yet to dub Jack Abramoff a “lawbbyist.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
You’re usually a skeptic and no fan of “cute.”  If linguists called <\/FONT>their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
weblogs “blings” (or argonauts called theirs “blargs”), you’d <\/FONT>probably <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
smirk.  But, note: no one else uses such verbal oddities in naming their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
weblogs.  So, <\/FONT>Ed<\/EM>, why do you, and other otherwise-serious members of <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the legal <\/FONT><\/FONT>community, refer to law-oriented weblogs as “blawgs?”  Why <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
take an insider <\/FONT>pun <\/FONT>by a popular lawyer-webdiva (which should have been <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
passed around and <\/FONT>admired briefly as a witty one-off) and help perpet-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
uate <\/FONT>it?<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"thesaurus\"   For much more <\/FONT>Go here<\/FONT><\/A>.<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (Jan. 20, 2006): The Editor of Blawg Review<\/EM> has <\/A><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>responded<\/A> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
to this posting by acting as if the issue were whether one has a <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
right<\/EM> to make new words.   Our point is, of course, that all words<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
are not created equal and that “blawg” fails virtually all of the tests <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
for a useful word that is worth keeping and, more important, worth <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
using<\/EM> (especially by a profession accused so often of using words <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
that <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>confuse and that set it apart).  [more inside<\/A>]<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
what my words can’t explain —
the autumn sun
on your back <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"coyote <\/FONT><\/EM> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n
a coyote call<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
goes unanswered<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
evening star<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

back again—<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P>
\n

the driftwood thrown<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P>
\n

<\/SPAN>with all my strength<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/EM><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/EM><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/EM><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/EM><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/EM><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

explaining it,<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P>
\n

my life sounds frivolous—<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/P>
\n

holly berries<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
paul m<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
“<\/FONT>what my words<\/FONT><\/A> can’t explain” – The Heron’s Nest<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
“a coyote call” – <\/FONT>Acron<\/FONT><\/A> No. 6 (Spring 2001)<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
“explaining it” – <\/FONT>acorn<\/FONT><\/A> haiku magazine<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“back again” – <\/FONT>pegging the wind<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>, <\/EM>2002; <\/FONT><\/FONT>acorn<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                               \"dictionaryN\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I just posted a lengthy essay on the above topic.  It’s in the form of an Open Letter to the Editor of Blawg Review.     Go here.   This is the opening:    “Whether or not a neologism continues as part of the language depends on many factors, probably the most important of which is acceptance by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-17Q","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"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=4330"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4330\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12822,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4330\/revisions\/12822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}