In short, the assumption that the word blovian would have any other connotation than that of its apparent relative bloviate reeks of obscurantism
I'm getting a "bloviated disk" trying to keep up with all of this. If, as you argue, "blovian" is a misspelling in that Google link tsuwm discovered, at least you aren't accusing me of perpetrating that misspelling. (Or are you?) If its a mistake, I am as much a victim as you are. When you get right down to it, "Bloviate", the word you are defending with such pedagogical rectitude isn't an actual word. My dictionary defines "bloviate" as a "slang word" assuming a "mock latin" form. Hence, even if it were true that "Blovian" is a misspelling (and I don't claim to be an expert on any of the dozens of brands of brericaudras on this planet), "Blovian", misspelling or no, has as much right to exist as the slang word "Bloviate". Quite apart from all of that, aren't we getting a little punctilious about all of this? No-one has given a thought to whether or not the metaphor actually works as a metaphor. Some seem to take more pleasure in eviscerating "Blovian's" internal organs than in reflecting on its external graces. Are we poets here or merely plumbers? In any case, if "Blovian" is a corrupted derivative of the corrupted word "bloviate", or if "Blovian" is a non-existent word masquerading as a slang word which is masquerading, in turn, as a legitimate word, namely, "blow", then isn't this a bit of a "bloviation" in a teapot?