That is a remarkably interesting blog. You should post links to good articles more often, since I am too lazy to regularly read anything but lj.

You can syndicate it so you can read it on LJ.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/index.rdf

It seems someone already did:
http://www.livejournal.com/friends/add.bml?user=languagelog

I found this out just by guessing that the username might be "languagelog" and discovering that I was right. I wonder if there's any way to find if some RSS feed is already LJ-ified?

Just try to create the feed. If it is already there, LJ will tell you.

Not the most elegant interface, but I guess that works.

I am the most elegant interface.

It really is quite a good blog. I have lincoln3 to thank for introducing it to me. I was just looking around the archives more today and found some other choice material. Here's one:
The people who grouse about 'like' are myopic old whiners who haven't looked at their own, like, linguistic foibles, if you will.

"... the 'Omit needless words' mantra from Strunk and White's toxic little book of crap is doubtless ringing in his ears ..."

heh, ouch.

Yeah, the "Strunk and White" rant at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.html
is amusing, and so is the "passive != ambiguous agency" one at
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000991.html
This latter one uses the word "lede", which I was totally unable to find at dictionary.com, and oed.com only listed it as an obsolete spelling of "lead". Other sources seem to suggest that it's still totally current in journalism.

if it's any consolation, "lede" is no good in both American and International English Scrabble. If it is no good in International English Scrabble (SOWPODS), then it most likely is not even close to being a word in the English language, since that dictionary is very loose in its criteria for what constitutes a word.

Well, that's a tragedy, because it does seem to be used as a word, at least by specialists. So maybe you could dismiss it as jargon, but it's not like none of us could grasp the concept of an attention-getting first line of a newspaper story. It doesn't seem to have any compelling reason for it to remain mere jargon.

On the "that"/"which" rantlet: okay, but it would be more fun to see stats on how often these Canonical Texts use each one in a relative and a restrictive way (and in what circumstances?), rather than flagging a single ("which", restrictive) example from each text.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I imagine that would take much more effort than just pulling up some project gutenberg texts and grepping a few times.