> Even "1954" is non-scholarly - even if it was considered so in the past.

Must disagree here. It was and is scholarly because it was created by conscientious scholars who found it useful. What's more, it described a kind of song that clearly exists, even if only in certain cultures under certain conditions.

Like most nomenclature outside of the hard sciences, however, it was not air-tight, flexible, or universally applicable. How could it be? Nor could the definers expect that commercialism would soon encourage *all* nonspecialists (and some specialists) to adopt broader definitions of what was, in 1954, a comparatively recondite term.

Another twist, as M suggests, is that for a great many fans (and Mudcat has its fair share), "folksong" has become a qualitative term.

Some people *want* their favorite songs to be called "folksongs." God knows why, but they do. It means a song in some fashion resembles a 1954-style "folksong" besides appealing to them in a personally significant way. And it's clearly not an aria or something "elite," which is usually not at all to their tastes.

Their usage is their privilege, even if some of us find it annoying.

I encounter so many annoyances each day that this rarely bothers me, and mainly when there's real ambiguity. And as Gibb says, in serious discussion those occasions can be, and are, easily - and profitably - avoided.