Blizzard

[cos]

"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.

Comments

[crs.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

[ragani.livejournal.com]

Indeed. The "blizzard of '78" is nice and specific, without being ridiculous.

[volta]

Heh. I have been using snowpocalypse and snowmageddon to poke fun at these people who think a little snowstorm is somehow a big deal.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I appreciate your sentiment of holding on to meaning without losing it in hyperbole. OTOH, I want my language to be a living, breathing entity that changes as we change, as anything that lives must change. OTGH, some things transcend such simple distinctions - if in talking about snow storms you refer to "the big one", any Masshole would know you mean the blizzard of '78 without further elucidation.

[ron_newman]

"Blizzard" means not just snow, but also lots of wind and low visibility. The National Weather Service issued a "blizzard warning" for this one, whereas usually they make do with just "winter storm".

[catamethyst.livejournal.com]

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.).

[kittytoys.livejournal.com]

My son calls it a snowgasam. He says that makes it sound fun.

about nyc

[rkt.livejournal.com]

the thing that has made it a near-snowpocalypse in nyc is total human failure. there is NO reason for there to be an abandoned bus or an abandonded plow-piece up my block or an abandonded garbage-truck-turned-plow a few blocks away STILL NOW.

yes, i enjoy the snowperson (with can of bud+citation for bud) in front of said truck, but seriously? subway lines still dysfunctional? this is beyond ridiculous. there was NOT that much snow. it is so not that cold outside. i don't even want to think about a real snowmaggedden anymore.

i have a real rant. but i'm arguing with my phone over release of pictures first.

[gravitrue.livejournal.com]

It's just linguistic inflation. We've got a lot of it going on. Awesome no longer involves much awe, Epic events do not require the composition of multi-hour bardic narratives, and Wars are administrative proceedings against social phenomena the government has decided are bad, as opposed to trying to keep another country from stealing hunks of real estate by blowing pieces off of every available able-bodied male. As the actual amount of drama in average human lives decreases, we make things sound more exciting than they are so that the stuff that is going on seems important.

[annodomini.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I thought that everyone who used the term "snowpocalypse" or "snowmageddon" was using it in jest, to poke fun at everyone who panics and can't deal with a run-of-the-mill blizzard in New England. That's how I use the terms, anyhow. A big snowstorm like this, I just stay inside (or close to home) while it's happening, shovel out the next morning, and go on with my life.