Blog as nominalization Thursday, April 27 11:05 PM
Hey Dan, how ya doin!
Certainly it's of interest to track down the actual historical path of a derivation. (Though there's no saying it's unique.)
But along with that let's not denigrate the synchronic status a word has in the (mental) lexicons of contemporary speakers. Here also there is a need for genuine scholarly investigation as distinct from mere (or even informed) speculation. Unfortunately, the latter is all I can offer now! :)
But in that spirit: Of course the nouns were both ('weblog' and 'blog') in place before the verb 'blog' could come along. So there's little ground for the label of nominalization.
I'm not sure of the context, but ... Remember the role of the label 'that's a nominalization' in pedagogic and editorial stylistics. Sometimes it clarifies what's wrong with a really messy construction. But at other times, having been elevated to something like a rule, it becomes cover for an otherwise-unexplained objection. Also, although indeed any V -> N (or A -> N) derivation might technically qualify a nominalization (and indeed might contribute to stylistic unpleasantness), typically the label is invoked when the derivation is done by affixing, and 'blog' (if assumed to be a V -> N derivation, which remains unlikely) might claim exemption from the stylistic "rule" against nominalizations on this ground.
Remember the role of the label 'that's a nominalization' in pedagogic and editorial stylistics
I meant to say 'rhetoric' in there. A piece of my own rhetorical stance I guess. Did I ever mmention at one point I was a Lector in the Little Red Schoolhouse, and then a writing tutor attached to a Common Core course? Nominalization was our enemy, and Joe Williams made a great case against it. But here I'm emphasizing that it was indeed a matter of making a case.
To blog is more of a verbalization (or whatever the term is) from the noun blog (which is weblog shortened).