Thread

Why?

Because the responsibility of good communication is, first, to be clear; second, to be beautiful.  Finally, it seems mostly silly to me to create a new word for something, some action, when that action already has a word for it, and compared to which is not substantially different. 

Do you know how long it took before regular (i.e., non-full-time web professionals) people knew what I meant by “blog”?  Even today people do not understand what it means, and this reasserts the principal idea of the (intentionally snarky) piece: it is unnecessarily obscure.  When someone “blogs”, all they’re doing is “writing”.  If you tell someone that you published an article yesterday, or that you wrote or composed an essay, what difference does it make that the medium was your website instead of a magazine?  Or that it displayed in reverse chronological order?

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

Sure, it is now, for the same reason that “blog” will also be listed there, as well as “flammable”:  both became so widely used that they were adopted into the common vernacular. Language evolves to include multiple ways of saying something; not all of them are equally clear, beautiful or necessary.

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

Ha! OK, tell you what: you post a simple sentence here, that uses “blog” as a verb, and I’ll re-state it for you by way of an example.  Deal?

Personal preferences have little to do with language production. Probably you don’t novel or magazine because these are ‘old’ words, but I nuke my food,  I google a and I blog!

Then, you may not like the phenomenon ‘blogging’. Nor do I, not really. But that’s a different issue.

Did anyone actually read Nathan’s article?

Of course.

His complaint is not that the usage is grammatically incorrect but that it sounds ugly and wholly unappealing.

He sounds rather more, shall we say, authoritative. (“Rules”, eg.)

He also raises a point about consistency: no one says “I’m going to novel about this” or “I’ll magazine that later.”

Ah, the marvels of a modern language. Wasn’t it Doug Larson who said “If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers”? I rest my case.

As a professional translator, I always have to laugh with these purists.
Language is a living, evolving, fluid thing just like the creatures that use it 😊

Finally, it seems mostly silly to me to create a new word for something, some action, when that action already has a word for it,

I don’t know if you’re basically a programmer or one of those anal reticent designers who can’t take that anything be wrong in the source code. But language is dynamic, ever-evolving and much less rigid than programming code. As long as it follows the rules of language production, which make neologisms understable, I have nothing to say.

Because the responsibility of good communication is, first, to be clear; second, to be beautiful.

I agree with the first premise: being clear. Actually, “to blog” fulfills that aspect beautifully in my opinion. In a way, “blogging” is “writing”, of course, but it is just different enough to warrant a new verb. This is my opinion, and if anybody doesn’t agree, that’s fine. But then again, I’m not acting like somebody died and made me the language police.

Finally, it seems mostly silly to me to create a new word for something, some action, when that action already has a word for it, and compared to which is not substantially different.

Yes, good point. That almost never happens in a language. English is particularly poor in synonyms, I understand.

... became so widely used that they were adopted into the common vernacular.

And that’s all I need to know, personally. I leave the uphill battles on the language front to other people.

Language is a living, evolving, fluid thing just like the creatures that use it 😊

Yes, my friend, this point has been made several times, by myself and others, and on which we’ve already reached consensus. No one denies or disputes it.  It has little to do with my point, however, “purist” that I am.

I don’t know if you’re basically a programmer or one of those anal reticent designers who can’t take that anything be wrong in the source code.

Two tangential, ad hominem arguments in as many comments? How disappointing! Clearly many people have strong feelings about language.

Clearly many people have strong feelings about language.

Brother, try living in a tri-lingual country where only a few decades ago you couldn’t even go to University and have classes in your native tongue, then we’ll talk. 😊

FTA:

a log, of any kind — web or otherwise — is a noun.

What about when you log an entry? Isn’t that a verb?

😉

Clearly many people have strong feelings about language.

Of course we have strong feelings about language. It’s what defines us. It’s what we live.

Um, let’s change the subject to something less contentious:

PC or Mac?

Vi or Emcas? Nah, I suppose you’re all Mac wu^H^Husers.

Ingmar, do you live in the Tower of Babel?

Personal preferences have little to do with language production. Probably you don’t novel or magazine because these are ‘old’ words, but I nuke my food,  I google a and I blog!

So, just to be clear, you’re supporting your statement on the irrelevancy of preference in language production with an example of preference in language production.

I do understand what you meant. Yes, grammar has little to do with personal preference—grammar is, in fact, an objective set of rules. But again, neither of us has posited the usage is grammatically incorrect. Our argument, which is preferential and subjective, is that the word “blog” sounds ugly, and we don’t like ugly words. That’s it! To argue I can’t have preference in my word choice and usage is ridiculous.

I will say one more time: we aren’t arguing you can’t use the noun blog as a verb. We are arguing that using it as such is ugly and unpleasing and we think it should stop. Savvy?

Just to continue fanning the flames, I think my larger point still stands: the overuse and misuse of the word blog (again, this is our opinion) can hurt the credibility of the medium in the eyes of traditional writers and journalists. The next time you’re watching the news, pay attention to the anchor-person’s inflection when they speak of “bloggers” or the “blogosphere.”

As a sidenote, we’re really hitting the big logical fallacies in this thread—so far, we’ve had ad hominem and strawman. What else you got?

I can think of many ugly and unpleasing words. Fundamentalism and Puritanism are a few of them. But, can I ban them? And even if I could, could I ban the phenomenon?