Thread

It had to be said.

A lost cause, of course; and—and I say that as a mere learner of the English language—one that I do not necessarily agree with. Most nouns can be turned into verbs, in many languages, and English is certainly no exception. Language is not static. I can only speculate as to the why, but English, and in particular American English, is one of the fastest changing languages today. What was wrong yesterday is tolerated today and will be completely accepted tomorrow. So, for the time being I think I’ll continue my usage of the verb “to blog” 😊

Most nouns can be turned into verbs, in many languages, and English is certainly no exception.

You misunderstand:  just because most nouns can be turned into verbs does not mean that they should be.  It’s not a matter of technical syntax but of simplicity, clarity, and elegance.

I can’t agree either.  Just like “googling”, “emailing” and “texting” - the necessary meaning is communicated when used.

You misunderstand:  just because most nouns can be turned into verbs does not mean that they should be.  It’s not a matter of technical syntax but of simplicity, clarity, and elegance.

Ah, there you have me… I’m not going to argue with a native speaker about “clarity and elegance”. I’m all for spelling, punctuation, grammar and correct usage in general, but style? Just too subjective an issue.

I can’t agree either.

Nor can I.

Language evolves and exists for the purpose of communicating. Since it’s widely understood what it means to blog about something, the language police is fighting a losing battle.

Ah, there you have me… I’m not going to argue with a native speaker about “clarity and elegance”. I’m all for spelling, punctuation, grammar and correct usage in general, but style? Just too subjective an issue.

I’m not a native speaker myself, but the use of “to blog” is perfectly clear and elegant (try to paraphrase, eh) and whether or not such use is formally correct only matters in limited contexts.

If “blog” can’t be a verb, what will we use instead?

Blogify?

Blogulate? (sounds obscene)

Bloggize?

Personally, I find the whole notion antidisemblogishmentarian.

Personally I hate this word, it has become a synonym for “read about how I went to restroom today” type of content and caused the web to become even bigger cluster of sites,links and pages about nothing and nothing alike.
So I agree, no need to make a it verb…I also think it is too late to change things, it has become a staple of new generations. Kids today “can’t” live without their texting, social sites and have even higher rate of inability to interact with non-pixelated people.
On the positive side, areas of world that have poor or controlled public media now have more outlets and tools of communication.
Then again, anything goes on the web 😊

As a former lexicographer of English/Swedish dictionaries (and a PhD in English lit), I’d say that it is common practice. It’s the way language evolves and it follows the rules of language production which, in fact is far more flexible than programming language.

But, there are many other things that make me baulk, like not knowing the difference between 90s and 90’s. Very common.

Just like “googling”, “emailing” and “texting” - the necessary meaning is communicated when used.

Again, the title of the article was not “Language Should Not Evolve, Nor Should Nouns Ever Be Used as Verbs.”  There are cases in which it is both appropriate and elegant to do so.  This is not one of those cases.

Since it’s widely understood what it means to blog about something, the language police is fighting a losing battle.

If I called something “drinkable”, you’d probably know what I meant by it. But why invent an extra, inelegant word when a perfectly good one already exists?

Just because something can be said multiple ways does not imply that all those ways are equivalent. I could probably grunt and flail my arms like a monkey to communicate something and still be widely understood.  But I choose not to.  That’s the point.

If “blog” can’t be a verb, what will we use instead?

You’re in good hands.

It’s the way language evolves and it follows the rules of language production which, in fact is far more flexible than programming language.

No one has argued against this point, so far, that I can tell.

Again, the title of the article was not “Language Should Not Evolve, Nor Should Nouns Ever Be Used as Verbs.” There are cases in which it is both appropriate and elegant to do so.  This is not one of those cases

Why?

But just because something can be said multiple ways does not imply that all those ways are equivalent. Why invent an extra, inelegant word when a perfectly good one already exists?

What do you mean, “invent”? “drinkable” is a perfectly cromulent adjective. According to the Oxf. Eng. Ref. Dict., at least.

If “blog” can’t be a verb, what will we use instead?

You’re in good hands.

Yeah, “write about it on my weblog” rolls delicisouly off the tongue, like silk, almost.

Did anyone actually read Nathan’s article?

His complaint is not that the usage is grammatically incorrect but that it sounds ugly and wholly unappealing. He also raises a point about consistency: no one says “I’m going to novel about this” or “I’ll magazine that later.” If we want writing a blog to be considered on equal footing with any other form of traditional writing or journalism, shouldn’t we refer to it in similar terms?

As an alternative, Nathan suggests we say “I wrote a blog post today” or “I wrote for my blog today” instead of “I blogged today.” Both sound more pleasing and more professional.