{"id":4602,"date":"2003-10-01T13:32:52","date_gmt":"2003-10-01T17:32:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/10\/01\/does-blog-jargon-turn-off-out"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:38","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:38","slug":"does-blog-jargon-turn-off-outsiders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/10\/01\/does-blog-jargon-turn-off-outsiders\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Blog Jargon Turn Off Outsiders?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Hoping to provoke some discussion at BloggerCon2003, I posted an Essay there yesterday called Jargon Builds Walls Not Bridges<\/A><\/EM>.  The process is working, as Denise Howell<\/A> has already replied with a thoughtful dissent<\/A>.  <\/P>
\n

Your <\/EM>thoughts are hereby requested either at this site, at the BloggerCon thread<\/A>, or at Bag and Baggage<\/A>,   Denise has asked<\/A> her myriad fans the question: “Do you think terms like ‘blog’ and ‘blawg’ are cliquish and off-putting?”   I’m not an expert on poll-taking, but asking the initiated insiders whether their lingo is cliquish might not make for a very scientific response.  Nonetheless, I hope you’ll reflect on your own initial reaction to the language of the blogosphere, on your friends’ response when you first used the term “blog,” and how you believe outsiders in general respond to the jargon of any group of insiders.<\/P>
\n

As you might expect, I wrote at length in my the BloggerCon Essay.  Here are my main points:<\/P>
\n


\n

It’s the pervasive use of jargon, acronyms, buzzwords and insider references by the blogger community that keeps the vast majority of Americans (or voters, or even online computer users) from learning about or caring about web log sites, much less becoming frequent visitors.   We are turning them off, instead of helping them become part of a community forged by weblog technology and camaraderie.<\/EM>   <\/P>
\n

When insiders want people outside their community to join or understand their undertaking, they need to use language common to the invitee.   You don’t drown the outsiders in jargon and idiomatic language, which are far more likely to alienate and turnoff them off, than to impress them with the wonders of the enterprise, the benefits of joining, or the superior wisdom of the insiders.  <\/P>
\n

Very few adults are looking for a clique, new religion, or (r)evolutionary movement to join.  . . . Instead, if they are going to turn to sites that use the weblog format, it will be because gathering or disseminating information that is important to them is especially easy and rewarding on such sites.<\/EM><\/P>
\n

[T]he four-letter word “blog” is ugly to the ear and eye.  Far more important, it denotes and connotes nothing to the average American — including some very intelligent friends of mine, who have been part of the computer age for quite a while. <\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

I’m hoping that the “outsiders” at BloggerCon will help illuminate this topic.  Please add you invaluable two cents.<\/P>
\n

Afterthought <\/STRONG><\/EM>(10-10-03)<\/FONT>:   Even in the afterglow of BloggerCon2003, w<\/FONT>e don’t know how the weblogging phenomenon will affect our global society.   There is one thing for certain, though:  the <\/FONT>(r)evolutions in internet and digital communication, technology and uses will continue.   And those who participate will be either actively or passively creating and passing on a Language Legacy, <\/STRONG>as names are assigned to new and unfolding concepts, constructs, and wrinkles.  (Indeed, the entire — non-French — world tends to accept the web terminology that is most often born here in America.)  Shouldn’t there be, a<\/FONT>long with that legacy,<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT>An <\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT>Ethics and Aesthetics of Language Creation?<\/STRONG>  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

The split between serious and trivial web-logging,<\/STRONG> that is demonstrated in the Perseus White Paper<\/STRONG> — The Blogging Iceberg<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> (by Jeffrey Henning, Perseus COO), suggests a solution for my pet peeve against the dirty little word b-l-o–g, and<\/EM> a broader  principle to apply when naming (and accepting the names) of things technical:  We have an obligation to craft a nomenclature that makes sense within the context of our langage and that — as much as possible — is aesthetically pleasing (easy on the ears and eyes).   <\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n
Of course, language must and should evolve, but new words and terminology should be built upon root forms that have some meaning within the history of our language.  “Automobile” made sense (a vehicle that moves by itself — no horses needed, with the root words being the Greek for self and the Latin for move).  “Telephone” has its roots in the Greek words for distant and voice.   E<\/FONT>ven a techie term like “kluge” has real roots in an actual language, as explained <\/FONT><\/FONT>here<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>.  (It’s the German word for clever and is used when one has found a clever, even if homely, way to solve a problem with the tools on hand.)     In contrast, “blog” has no linguistic, historical, or cultural frame of reference.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Perhaps, most teens (or even aging geeks) don’t care whether the jargon they create has lasting linguistic appeal — indeed, they often want<\/EM> to use terminology that is edgy, offensive or cliquish.   But language-lovers and serious users of words should<\/EM> care — as should those who want the new concepts and tools of technology to be readily accessible to a broad public.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
There is no good reason to leave a language legacy such as the four-letter word “blog”.<\/STRONG>   Here’s some history of the terminology:   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

  • \n
    The term “blog” was coined by Peter Merholz<\/STRONG>, at <\/FONT>peterme.com<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>.  Here’s Peter’s explanation for it (emphasis added): <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
    \n

    \n

    [In April or May of 1999] I posted, in the sidebar of my homepage: “For What It’s Worth I’ve decided to pronounce the word “weblog” as wee’- blog.  Or “blog” for short.”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
    \n

    <\/FONT><\/P>
    \n


    \n

    I didn’t think much of it. I was just being silly<\/U>, shifting the syllabic break one letter to the left.  I started using the word in my posts, and some folks, when emailing me, would use it, too. I enjoyed it’s crudeness, it’s dissonance<\/U>…<\/FONT> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
    \n

    I like that it’s roughly onomatopoeic of vomiting<\/U>. These sites (mine included!) tend to be a kind of information upchucking<\/U>.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
    \n

    <\/FONT><\/P>
    \n


    \n

    ‘Blog’ would have likely died a forgotten death had it not been for one thing: In August of 1999, Pyra Labs released <\/FONT>Blogger<\/FONT>. And with that, the use of “blog” grew with the tool’s success. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/FONT>
    \n

  • Not long thereafter, Brad L. Graham<\/STRONG> of <\/FONT>Bradlands<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>‘ wrote: “It’s Peter Fault<\/STRONG>.  A year ago, “weblog” was hardly a common word . .. Then the supremely urbane <\/FONT>Peter Merholz<\/FONT> decided it would be fun to pronounce “weblog” as “wee’blog” and I thought that was kind of cute. Then folks started truncating that<\/EM> to merely “<\/U><\/FONT>blog<\/U><\/FONT>” and — ugh! — it’s stuck! <\/U> . . . <\/FONT>So, now then. Where are we headed?  . . . Is blog- (or -blog) poised to become the prefix\/suffix of the next century? Will we soon suffer from (and tire of) blogorreah?  Despite its whimsical provenance, it’s an awkward, homely little word<\/U>. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>
    \n