I had to follow up my last post about “webinar” as useful vs. unuseful terminology when I saw a story in today’s New York Times by Bryan A. Garner. Part of the Times’ “On Language” category, the article is simply titled “Webinar.”
Mr. Garner starts his article with this paragraph:
Webinar (Web + seminar) seems like a fine neologism for a seminar
offered online. A blend of two common terms, it’s immediately understood
by most people. I’ve been taking Webinars lately; I like them and
appreciate having a handy word for them — even though I’m often inclined
to object to linguistic “innovations.”
The battle over the use of the word has spurred various parties to fits of vitriol over the past few years. I have received both blog comments and private emails from people convinced that the term offers concrete evidence of the decline and fall of the English language, as if our language is a static, unchangeable absolute. I direct these people to the following sentence from Mr. Garner:
Once a word acquires general currency, only a hopelessly out-of-touch
pedant would take up quixotic arms against it.
Nifty.
So I think I will continue to use the term, secure in the knowledge that the New York Times, that bastion of linguistic style and propriety, has given its blessing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28FOB-onlanguage-t.html
By Ken Molay, president of Webinar Success
Originally posted on The Webinar Blog