<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Everything You Know About English Is Wrong &#187; abbreviations</title>
	<atom:link href="http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/index.php/category/abbreviations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1</link>
	<description>Cantankerous commentary on what we speak and why we speak it, from Bill Brohaugh</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:01:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>What we have here is a fail to communicate (bang!)</title>
		<link>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/11/08/what-we-have-here-is-a-fail-to-communicate-bang/</link>
		<comments>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/11/08/what-we-have-here-is-a-fail-to-communicate-bang/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Brohaugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Chaucer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English origins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French sources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shakespeare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbreviations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future of the language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verbing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[word history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullshitternet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editrix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure to communicate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Swift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Old French]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oxford English Dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Webspeak]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/11/08/what-we-have-here-is-a-fail-to-communicate-bang/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today&#8217;s instruction: Always use fail as a verb! A thing that fails is a failure!
Always use it as a verb, Mr. Brohaugh?
Yes. Without fail! . . . oops.
I bring this up because of Christopher Beam&#8217;s recent Slate coverage of the increasing use of fail as a noun (which I discovered by way of Editrix alert). I suggest that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today&#8217;s instruction: Always use <i>fail</i> as a verb! A thing that fails is a <i>failure</i>!</p>
<p><i><u>Always</u> use it as a verb, Mr. Brohaugh?</i></p>
<p>Yes. Without fail! . . . oops.</p>
<p>I bring this up because of <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2202262/" target="_blank">Christopher Beam&#8217;s recent <i>Slate</i> coverage of the increasing use of <i>fail</i> as a noun</a> (which I discovered by way of <a href="http://www.editrix.us/" target="_blank">Editrix</a> alert). I suggest that <i>Slate</i>&#8217;s shot at the noun was not a  complete succeed. For one, modern use of the noun is slangish and a bit distracting, but I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s precisely the &#8220;Internet meme&#8221; that <i>Slate</i> would have it. <i>Fail</i> as a noun was first recorded near the turn of the 13th century. Chaucer used it, as did Shakespeare and Swift. It has been dubbed &#8220;obsolete&#8221; by the Oxford English Dictionary, with the exception of the fossil phrase, &#8220;without fail.&#8221;</p>
<p>Is the modern use a revival, or a new formation? Here&#8217;s an excerpt from <i>Slate</i>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Most Internet memes have the lifespan of fruit flies. But there&#8217;s evidence to suggest <i>fail</i> is here to stay. For one thing, it&#8217;s easier to say than <i>failure</i>. (Need for brevity might explain why, in Webspeak, the opposite of <i>fail</i> is not <i>success</i> but <i>win</i>.) And there&#8217;s a proud tradition in English of chopping off the endings of words for convenience.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, but there are other proud neological traditions, as well, such as verb-to-noun conversion? Both the original noun and the original verb use appear about the same time, both brought in from Old French; one was not—in English, at least—a conversion of the other. In the case of the modern use, I suspect it&#8217;s conversion and not shortening, just as the noun <i>convert</i> was converted from the verb <i>convert</i>. Particularly in the light that first recorded use of <i>failure</i> comes just under 350 years after <i>fail</i> the noun.</p>
<p>By the way, <i>Slate</i> points to a good blog recording fails: <a href="http://failblog.org/" target="_blank">FAILblog</a>, but fails to note its kin, the <a href="http://www.englishfailblog.com/" target="_blank">English FAIL Blog</a>.</p>
<p>And the title of this piece? Just another excuse to honor Paul Newman:</p>
<p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1fuDDqU6n4o&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1fuDDqU6n4o&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/11/08/what-we-have-here-is-a-fail-to-communicate-bang/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doesn&#8217;t the word &#8220;blog&#8221; bring to mind regurgitation?</title>
		<link>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/05/27/doesnt-the-word-blog-bring-to-mind-regurgitation/</link>
		<comments>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/05/27/doesnt-the-word-blog-bring-to-mind-regurgitation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 23:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Brohaugh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[abbreviations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ugly words]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbreviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Everything You Know About English Is Wrong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web-log]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/05/27/doesnt-the-word-blog-bring-to-mind-regurgitation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a thought I&#8217;ve expounded upon before, but I must address it here, in an early installment of the nascent Everything You Know About English Is Wrong web-log: 
Technically, I suppose you could call this a &#8220;blog.&#8221; You could. I won&#8217;t. As a word person, I look skeptically at the word blog. Which is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a thought I&#8217;ve expounded upon before, but I must address it here, in an early installment of the nascent <em>Everything You Know About English Is Wrong</em> web-log: </p>
<p>Technically, I suppose you could call this a &#8220;blog.&#8221; <em>You </em>could. I won&#8217;t. As a word person, I look skeptically at the word <em>blog</em>. Which is a polite way to say I despise it.</p>
<p>Certainly, I honor the word mechanism that created it, as I do all mechanisms of English neology. It&#8217;s an interesting specimen of word-creation, too&mdash;an abbreviation that shortens the original phrase (&#8221;web-log&#8221;) from the front, while most abbreviations lop off the end (such as <em>info</em> for <em>information</em>). Variations occur, of course, such as <em>flu</em> from <em>influenza</em>&mdash;lopping off both middle and end.</p>
<p>The mechanism is sound. The result is grating. <em>Blog</em> has all the beauty of other words that start with the same B-L consonant combination, words that have remarkable affinity to the word blog: <em>blather</em>, <em>blab</em>, <em>blabber,</em> <em>blah,</em> <em>blase</em>,<em> blob </em>and <em>bloney</em>. Well, just kidding about that last one.</p>
<p>So, this is not a blog. It&#8217;s just blah blathering blabber. </p>
<p><strong>Navel-Gazing Side Note Alert:</strong> To be slightly more succinct, I could have tightened my first sentence by writing &#8220;expounded on&#8221; as opposed to &#8220;expounded upon.&#8221; But concision is a matter of mental length as well as physical length. &#8220;Expounded on&#8221; sounds almost unnatural, in that a word as pompous as expounded nearly cries out to be followed by something equally pompous. The phrase is shorter, but mentally longer. And that&#8217;s today&#8217;s <em>Write Tight</em> moment. <strong>End Navel-Gazing Side Note Alert.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://everythingyouknowaboutenglishiswrong.com/blog1/2008/05/27/doesnt-the-word-blog-bring-to-mind-regurgitation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.669 seconds -->

