"Blizzard" is a perfectly fine word that could serve us well for centuries. I wish we weren't calling every run-of-the-mill blizzard a "snowpocalypse".
True, it is a fun word. If we'd had it in '78 it would've come in handy. We made do with "blizzard" then.
I think that slang or non-standard usage can serve a purpose in bringing together a group of people. Language and dialect is often connected deeply with identity. Usually these terms are more localized, but last winter the internet served as a tool to make "snowpocalypse" significantly more widespread. Sure, it's a silly term, but it also made a large group of people feel like they were somehow connected -- like they survived something together. And in Baltimore, at least, last year's storm was out of the ordinary. The largest in my lifetime, I think. Or at least since the early '90s. While it's not necessary, there's nothing wrong with having a term to distinguish an intensity beyond "blizzard."
Of course, if it starts being used to describe every blizzard, it just becomes a catchphrase and loses its sense of intensity. On the other hand, terms of intensity generally tend to become more mainstream and less intense over time (awesome, amazing, terrible, horrible, etc.).
> Of course, if it starts being used to describe every blizzard ...
That's exactly what I mean. We just had a run-of-the-mill blizzard. Hence, my objection wasn't to the existence of the term "snowpocalypse" (which I acknowledge is a fun word), but that "I wish we weren't calling every run-of-the-mill blizzard a snowpocalypse" (to quote my post :).
Maybe its usage is supposed to be reminiscent of days of yore (by which I mean last winter). I also have no idea what Boston is looking like right now.
Here's a usage question, though: as someone else pointed out, "blizzard" denotes high winds and low visibility. Is there a term (besides the somewhat tepid "winter storm") for a storm that doesn't feature high winds but does dump an abnormal amount of snow?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Of course, if it starts being used to describe every blizzard, it just becomes a catchphrase and loses its sense of intensity. On the other hand, terms of intensity generally tend to become more mainstream and less intense over time (awesome, amazing, terrible, horrible, etc.).
no subject
That's exactly what I mean. We just had a run-of-the-mill blizzard. Hence, my objection wasn't to the existence of the term "snowpocalypse" (which I acknowledge is a fun word), but that "I wish we weren't calling every run-of-the-mill blizzard a snowpocalypse" (to quote my post :).
no subject
Here's a usage question, though: as someone else pointed out, "blizzard" denotes high winds and low visibility. Is there a term (besides the somewhat tepid "winter storm") for a storm that doesn't feature high winds but does dump an abnormal amount of snow?
no subject
...which is why I referred to last year's storm in DC as "The Snowpocalytastrofucktagon".
no subject
On the other hand, what if you get a worse storm later on, I hope you'll be able to come up with something suitably fucktasmarigtigally evocative?