I just posted a lengthy essay on the above
topic. It’s in the form of an Open Letter to
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 the public.”
“Words become obsolete or archaic for any
number of Reasons.”
Dear Blawg Review Editor [“Ed“]:
I’ve come to know you as an articulate lover of the English language.
As far as I know, you don’t say “lawgic” or “lawnguage,” drink “lawtte,”
bill clawents, or use Blawk‘s Dictionary. You don’t call lazy associates
“slawkers,” and have yet to dub Jack Abramoff a “lawbbyist.”
You’re usually a skeptic and no fan of “cute.” If linguists called their
weblogs “blings” (or argonauts called theirs “blargs”), you’d probably
smirk. But, note: no one else uses such verbal oddities in naming their
weblogs. So, Ed, why do you, and other otherwise-serious members of
the legal community, refer to law-oriented weblogs as “blawgs?” Why
take an insider pun by a popular lawyer-webdiva (which should have been
passed around and admired briefly as a witty one-off) and help perpet-
uate it?
For much more Go here.
to this posting by acting as if the issue were whether one has a
right to make new words. Our point is, of course, that all words
are not created equal and that “blawg” fails virtually all of the tests
for a useful word that is worth keeping and, more important, worth
using (especially by a profession accused so often of using words
that confuse and that set it apart). [more inside]
what my words can’t explain —
the autumn sun
on your back
a coyote call
goes unanswered
evening star
back again—
the driftwood thrown
with all my strength
explaining it,
my life sounds frivolous—
holly berries
“what my words can’t explain” – The Heron’s Nest
“a coyote call” – Acron No. 6 (Spring 2001)
“explaining it” – acorn haiku magazine
“back again” – pegging the wind, 2002; acorn
