Blog, blogger, blogging

This here is what one might call a Public Service Announcement. Here’s a handy guide for those of you who want to sound “up” on the lingo and trends in our lexicon, c. 2009. This way I won’t think you’re a wannabe when you talk about blogging or tweeting.

Some simple stuff, said in fun, so don’t get all atwitter (HA! HA! Laugh at my joke; I’m clever!).

This whole website (apublicdefender.com) is a blog. I, Gideon, am the author of this blog. This makes me a blogger. This particular piece that I have written, entitled “blog, blogger, blogging” is a blog post.

You cannot say that I have written a blog when you are referring to this particular post. You can say that I write a blog in reference to apublicdefender.com, however. You also cannot have read my latest blog, unless, of course, I started a new website (or blog) and you have been reading that. You can (and must) say that you read my latest post. It’s like saying that you’ve read my latest book, when actually referring to the last chapter of my book.

Simple enough? Blog is a website, the person writing it is a blogger and the individual entries are blog posts.

Onto Twitter. Twitter is the company or service that is used by millions. You do not twitter. That’s like saying you Apple or Microsoft. You tweet. Thus, you cannot have read my recent twitter. You could have read my latest tweet, however. A person who uses Twitter is not twittering; he or she is tweeting.

Now if you absorb these simple conjugations, you will be ready to engage in an intelligent conversation on the above subjects! You don’t have to thank me, really. I want to inform.

25 thoughts on “Blog, blogger, blogging

  1. shg

    I was fine with this until you got to twitterering. I reject your reality and substitute my own. A person on twitter twits. He twits to a twit or twitterer and when they twit to each other, they are twitterers twitting or twittering.

    Just because someone else decides to use the unbearably cutesy “tweet” word does not mean that other tweeples must adhere to their twittercabulary. And if you disagree, you can stick it up your twass.

    Reply
  2. Windypundit

    Get used to it.

    New participants in any activity tend to misuse the language. Usually, the old timers correct them, but when some niche activity hits the bigtime, the new people far outnumber the old, so the new and incorrect jargon takes over.

    “Sci-Fi” used to be a derogatory term for Science Fiction, web sites used to have Welcome pages not “Home” pages, computer experts who engaged in “hacking” weren’t committing a crime, and don’t even get me started on the whole “Trekker”/”Trekkie” mess…

    Reply
    1. Gideon

      Sci-Fi used to be a derogatory term? Hmm, didn’t know that. I knew about welcome pages.

      What’s this Trekker/Trekkie mess? (I had to ask, being a Trekkie myself :))

      Reply
      1. Windypundit

        Maybe “Sci-Fi” wasn’t derogatory, but it was thought to be. Back in the 70′s (and maybe the 80′s) a lot of fans of written science fiction didn’t like the monster-at-the-Saturday-matinee sound of “sci-fi”—they thought real science fiction was better than that. They preferred to call it “SF”. The hoards of new fans that came with Star Wars, Close Encounters, and E.T. didn’t give a damn.

        As for “Trekker/Trekkie,” back in the old days, before the first Star Trek movie came out, it was felt that “Trekkie” sounded diminutive—it was something non-fans would use to make fun of hard-core fans (e.g. people who went to cons)—so “real” fans preferred the supposedly more respectable “Trekker”. Again, all the fans that came later didn’t give a damn.

        I suppose what happened in both cases is that when science fiction films started making hundreds of millions of dollars, the inferiority complex went away and fans no longer cared what other people called them.

        Reply
    1. Gideon Post author

      So you’d be interested if the terms were: “blogger of the first part”, “aforementioned blogger” and “wherefore blogger”?

      Reply
        1. Gideon Post author

          Neither the post nor the replacement I suggested in the comment were good enough to capture your attention – you said both caused your eyes to glaze over – so I was wondering what it would take to retain your attention on this site.

          It was a joke…

          Reply
  3. Jamie

    Let’s do some conjugation, shall we?

    I teach, You teach, He/She/It teaches

    Past tense?

    I taught, You taught, He/She/It taught

    OK, so it’s “tweet” not “twit”, eh? (I’m with Scott, I like “Twit”, but OK, let’s continue…)

    I tweet, You tweet, He/She/It tweets

    So what’s the past tense? of the verb?

    Reply
  4. Jen

    Hm. I don’t know about this whole, “twittering” is not a word nonsense. And I say this as someone who has been on Twitter since April of ’07, meaning I’m not new to the ballgame.

    Yes, if you send something – it is a tweet; however, if you’re reading and responding, I think that activity could be calling Twittering.

    Reply
    1. Gideon Post author

      Right, sure, but under no circumstances is a “tweet” a “twit”.

      That’s just Greenfield resisting change and opting to get left behind.

      Reply

Leave a Reply