I know you, like so many, will never be able to live without the word "tweet." It has become as much a part of our lives as "iPad", "troll" and "Lol."
Not everyone thinks this way, however. The New York Times, for one, announced that its writers would no longer be so cavalier as to use the Twitter byword.
"Tweet" is not, according to the Times Standards Editor, Phil Corbett, "standard English." "Tweet," he opined, may well fade into oblivion. Surely, I opine, only if BP has anything to do with it.
Still, Stephen Colbert, the famous right-wing talk show host of "The Colbert Report," and great upholder of standards, decided that he, too, must object.
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
|Brevity Is the Soul of Twit|
Offering some joyous observations, he suggested that Twitter had not banned the word "newspaper" and that seems to already have been swallowed by oblivion's epiglottis.
Colbert went on to prove just how important tweets have become. With Twitter's whales signifying frequent fails, if his 1.5 million followers aren't getting his tweets, how can they possibly live?
While Colbert offers that, given the BP disaster, "tweets" might temporarily be renamed "gurgles," you wonder just why anyone would truly be concerned about the sudden arrival of a new use for a very old, simple word.
It's not as if "tweet" was "ugnamumpha," a new set of letters infiltrating the English language like some kind of sleeper cell.
While Corbett reportedly admitted, in a leaked internal memo obtained by TheAWL.com, that he found the word "silly," who can be surprised that Colbert ended his tweetalogue by suggesting Corbett should go tweet himself?