Slashdot Mirror
No "Ungoogleable" In Swedish Lexicon, Thanks to Google
jfruh writes "The Swedish Language Council is a semi-official, government funded body that regulates, cultivates, and tracks changes to the Swedish language. Every year it releases a list of new words that have crept into Swedish, and one of 2012's entries was 'ogooglebar' — 'ungoogleable,' meaning something that can't be found with a search engine. After Google demanded that the definition be changed and the Council add a disclaimer about Google's trademark, the Council has instead decided to remove the word from the list altogether."
Does that mean that the word "ogooglebar" suddenly became ungoogleable?
Ezekiel 23:20
Bork bork, bourdie bourdie bourdie.
... seriously, we needed a word for this?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I feel I should set up Social Contract, Inc. and remove that term from the dictionary. It does seem to have lost all meaning after all.
Google, you're cunts.
So it's ungoogleable?!
Yah dat cheek vas totally unbingable. I vood not heet dat vees yur dik Anders.
Google suggested unbingable as a replacement.
Does anybody know how to say "Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker" in Swedish?
'zlatanera', a Swedish neologism from the French neologism 'zlataner'.
See also:
http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/zlataner
http://www.20minutes.fr/sport/1108105-verbe-zlataner-entrera-dictionnaire
http://nesn.com/2012/12/sweden-adds-zlataner-to-dictionary-honoring-zlatan-ibrahimovics-dominance-on-soccer-field/
For those curious to why Google raised a ruckus about this, there is a concept that once a word has become used in the more generic sense that the term may be used by other companies and the original company may lose their trademark rights . Xerox went through this in the 80's when Xerox was synonymous with photocopying... I remember my mom "Xeroxing" on the office machine even though it wasn't a Xerox. Xerox went through a significant ad campaign to get folks to change their behavior.
-- MyLongNickName
Didn't Adobe try something similar with Photoshop, specifically saying, "'Photoshop' is not a verb."?
This is nowhere near a trademark issue. I know the Google cult of Slashdot might hound me but come on, there has to be a limit to how much they insult your intelligence before you finally start pushing back. Had Microsoft demanded that Slashdot no longer use the broken Windows icon there would be howls of rage. This is so much more a non-issue than that it brings about a few words to mind... "petty", "over sensative", "assholish"
Google is turning into Microsoft.
The inquirer has the link to the original post
start using google and "google"-containing words with completely generic meanings. e.g. "I used twelve search engines but couldn't find anything in all of google-dom" "I googled my way through my homework using yahoo search", etc.
Only when a word is developed which indicates there is a limit to google's indexing of human knowledge do they have a complaint.
That's how I begin my prayers to the internet gods, before hitting "Search".
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Don't be stupid.
Google servers--and only Google servers--are denied the ability to trundle through my websites.
They are indeed ungoogleable.
And What with the English Oxford usage for the "Googling" and "Gogleable" terms? Have Google already demanded them to remove it as well? Last time I checked it was still there. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/google?q=Googling
In ancient Rome, there was a government official responsible for determining whether or not this particular year would have a "leap month" (mensis intercalaris), rather than it being based on a mathematical formula as it is nowadays. Naturally, a certain degree of power came with this ability; if a contract or a political office expired later in the year, by inserting (or not inserting) the intercalary month after February, one could effectively extend or cut short the term of those contracts or offices.
And of course, men of power or influence were eventually able to bribe, or coerce, the calendar officials into doing just that for them. Yes, the government actually had the power to tell you what time it was---and, what a surprise, this power was soon corrupted.
Maybe it's time people who speak Swedish start ignoring the Swedish language "police" and their obviously-bought (or coerced) decisions on what makes up the "real" Swedish lexicon.
Liberty in your lifetime
That's a little dramatic, don't you think?
Sweden is not alone in having an official body to oversee their lexicon - lots of countries do it. English is somewhat of an anomaly in that way, since, unlike most other languages, it's just kind of a big melting pot for everything else.
Meeeayh (me sticking out tongue)
- I stole your sig.
Instead of googlebar make it ogööglebar.
Just another reason.
Maybe Google would have accepted it if it had been changed to "øgøøglebar"?
You're vastly exaggerating their "corruption" here. They're not a language police[0]. They are simply making an observation about words they notice have popped up in common usage[1]. Nobody really cares about this list, people just read it for the curiosity value.
To make this clear, the final sentences in their own comment about the debacle translates roughly to: "Everybody's part of deciding what words are introduced in the language by choosing what words we use. If we want ogooglingsbar in the language we'll use the word and it is our use that is important - nothing a multinational company can change by coercion. The word is free![2]"
[0] If we have one, it's not them, but rather Svenska Akademien - the same folks that award the Nobel Prize in Literature.
[1] Not that I've ever actually heard ogooglingsbar it being used by anybody.
[2] A little word play there - "ordet är fritt", literally meaning "the word is free", is a Swedish expression used when you invite anybody present to speak their mind on something.
May we live long and die out
Don't bother: he's probably canadian....
If "Ungoogleable" means it can't be found via search engine, doesn't that imply that if anything can find it, Google can? Also, I didn't hear them complaining when their name started becoming a verb.
If we colonize Mars, it won't be the World Wide Web anymore. UWW?
were left googly-eyed with this story
The word "ogooglebar" has no negative connotation in Swedish. It simply describes something so unusual that it cannot easily be googled. If anything, Google should feel proud that their search engine is being used as a measure.
While this was an uptight move by Google followed by a slightly cowardly response by the Swedish Language Council, it will have no effect on people's everyday language use in Sweden... but it may just draw attention to the word "ungooglable".
Should that not be ogooglingsbar instead. Ogooglebar feels wrong and IMO means something completly different.
Yeah, Google is just like any other corporation. IMHO, worse so, as Google pretends to have ethics and morals. Bah! Where is Dogpile or Bing...
In addition: The head of the Swedish Academy, which is the institution that produces the most comprehensive dictionary of the Swedish language (SAOB) and also the dictionary that is generally considered most standard and normative (SAOL), recently commented that what Google is doing is actually making people more aware of the word, with the consequence that it's now much more likely that the word will make it into SAOB and perhaps even SAOL. But maybe that was Google's intention all along. I should probably also mention that the Swedish academy is an independent cultural institution and not under government control.
They could always use the swedish translation for "one less than a googlewhack"
Adjective:
A person whose appearance is so objectionable that they are unable to engage in intercourse with others.
Example:
"It doesn't matter how many more beers I have, that chick is just unbingable man."
I have a feeling this will be Streisanded into a real word pretty soon.
Rome was an oligarchy. Oh, wait, so is Göögle!
But this very article shows that they are not just observing. They have an agenda, and can be coursed or bought into saying that a grouping of letters is a word or that it is not a word.
And most people go by dictionaries and official sources like this. If I used ungoogleable in a high school essay I would absolutely get marks taken off unless I could produce some official documents calling it a word. This means that that word is used less, which makes a cumulative effect for it not making it into dictionaries and spell checkers.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm surprised people actually *listen* to them. Taking a language that's about as widely-spoken as English: is there some central authority who can add and remove words from Spanish? Would anyone care?
Do you find it strange that a bunch of bureaucrats tell you what words you can and can't use?
ogooglebar: thought or concept forbidden by google
bullies a country
Seriously, you got that from "Swedish Language Council has removed "ogooglebar", or "ungoogleable," from its annual list of new words after pressure from Google to respect its trademarks."...I don't think that is sound logic :)
As for your suggestion that Microsoft would get chastised for defending its trademarks which it does *all* the time. It doesn't; just nobody cares. You should google it :) If you look at the page dedicated to Microsoft Litigation on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation it has links to some of the more popular trademark disputes. The most hilarious one listed is "Microsoft sued a Canadian high school student named Mike Rowe over the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com." The full details are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
i am a citizen and national of a central-european country, and we have this bribable language police you talk of. if i used a word like this in a high school essay, i would get marks taken off only if the word was constructed in violation of the language rules (grammatically correct prefix, affix, this kinds of things).
where exactly are you from?
Until it's Apple or Microsoft doing it. Typical Google fanboi hypocrisy.
The reality is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademark is we have a look at Apple they sue everything with an Apple logo...and its a fruit.
Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation think they have the same right over Windows a generic computer word.
The reality is Apple and Microsoft are both heavily litigious companies, and bullies...but *routinely* have trademark disputes, that are *justified* and resolved amicably. Perhaps you should examine your own loyalties.
Because the Swedish people loves authority, and considers anything coming from above as the word of god. Sure, they might complain a bit, but eventually everyone will get in line "because it's the law". No matter how unfair or wrong it is.
3 different people in the office have already started using this word today. I imagine it will catch on like crazy now.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Yes, the Real Academia Española for Spanish Spanish. Obviously that doesn't apply to for example Mexican Spanish.
As others have pointed out, English is unusual in that it doesn't have a central language authority regulating it.
THEREs the Tuppe666 reply. I was wondering when you'd come defend Google, surprised it wasn't sooner in the comment field. Busy being a fanboy elsewhere?
No....Building a replica of Mountain View out of Matchsticks...and LOVE.
Hey, I just bought a set of those from Ikea and took all weekend putting them together.
Every tabloid trash reporting red-flag alert goes off reading this story.
-Google wants everyone saying "Google" under every possible circumstance.
-No-one is Sweden is going to fear the wrath of Google.
-people who draw up lists of new words and phrases entering common-usage are well aware that many will reference companies/products/people, and have done so frequently in the past.
So, my 'scientific method' dismisses the story as BS. Of course, an unimportant publicity seeking individual might draw up lists, and another unimportant minor flunky from the local branch of Google might give him a call to remind him that 'Google' is a trademark, but if these are the facts, the story is as much of a non-story as the story of what you had for breakfast this morning.
The word would have been more correct Swedish if it had been "ogooglingsbar". The verb that people use is "googla", not "googl". There should be an 's' before "bar" before the prefix is a composite.
Take that, Språkrådet!
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
...I'm Swedish and I'd never heard the word before today...so I don't think it's much of a problem that it was removed...
Government Ministry of Silly Words
I say it, not you! *I* say what a word is!!!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The word "google" as invented by a mathematician's cild, as a response to what the number 1 with a 100 zeros after it should be called. The founders of Google stole it as an indication of abundance, of vast volume. They did not contact the mathematician, the son, or literary authorities, or the Ministry of Silly Words, to seek permission or get a licence, first. They supposed the licence was implicit in the word's existence.If they thought about it at all.
In other news :" You can't say the word 'Jehovah!'."
Doesn't work like that, Swedish has no official dictionary and there is no list of official words. Actually Sweden does not even have an official language, the only reason that we get everything translated to Swedish by the EU is thanks to Finland since Swedish is one of the official languages there. So we cannot have a language police.
If your native tongue is English, you might find it hard to believe, but most languages actually have such a central "authority". English is an exception in this regard – probably because it is so badly fragmented (American vs. British spelling, grammar & vocabulary) and there already many competing private dictionary publishers with their own standards. But even if many languages do have such official bureaus, it is not right to think that these bureaus would have actual power to dictate what language people use in everyday communication (how silly would that be?). To the contrary, they are reactive rather than proactive: if a new word is documented (in press, literature, etc.), they investigate it and possibly add it to the lexicon.
But even if many languages do have such official bureaus, it is not right to think that these bureaus would have actual power to dictate what language people use in everyday communication (how silly would that be?). To the contrary, they are reactive rather than proactive: if a new word is documented (in press, literature, etc.), they investigate it and possibly add it to the lexicon.
This is a totally different thing (and IMO a natural and good thing) -- someone who just keeps tabs on the evolution of a language. English has no official body that does this, because nobody owns the English language, but there's the Oxford English Dictionary, etc...
I don't think the Oxford English Dictionary has much at all more valid claim to "owning" the English language than the Swedish Language Academy has to "owning" the Swedish language. Although most written languages might have a specific formal variety, that must conform to strict standards of validity, there is of course always some body that decides what is valid and what is not. Generally it's some sort of a bureau, but it can also be many different competing institutions, like with English, German and Spanish. German, for example, has different validity rules when printed in Switzerland than when printed in the Federal Republic of Germany.
But when we talk about the language, it of course comprises much more than only its formal literature. Actually, the formal language is really just a very small fraction of the real usage of any language. Moreover, the spoken language is universally devoid of any authority except those who speak and use the language. This gives rise to dialects, which all living languages have, and the living, spoken language is where the written and formal language must draw its inspiration.
When a trademark becomes part of the lexicon it has a certain status. A legacy that lives on beyond the product. think Hoover, Kilner, Tilley or Roomba. all became de-facto names for the innovation. You cant just buy this shit
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
I don't know about Sweden, but AFAIK in Germany you are only required to adhere to the official language rules if you are either a teacher for German language in a public school, or if you are a government employee writing an official document. In any other situation you can see it as just a recommendation (at least as far as the law is concerned). For example, after the spelling reform, some German newspapers decided to continue using the old spelling, and some others made their own modifications of the new official rules for their house style.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
In England they also have people who come out with the 10 interesting new words in the year. Everytime there's a new English dictionary edition the news media will report on some of the interesting new additions to it.
Can't use ogoogelbar? Ok, we'll use obingbar then, it rolls off the tounge better anyway.
'ogooglebar' ; just googled it...
From now on, I'm using Yahoo! to google things on the Internet.
Have gnu, will travel.
But due to the weirdness of trademark law, Microsoft would still be require to sue the pretzel maker (They need to show effort in keeping the TM otherwise they risk losing it), until the judge obviously rule that there's no way someone could confuse a pretzel and a piece of word* processing software, even if they have similar names.
If they don't they risk losing the trademark.
(Notice: The full trade-marked name is "Microsoft Office Word". "word" alone is just a regular word and is generic in the realm of word processors. Just like you CANNOT trademark "Vehicle(tm)" or "Transportation(tm)" to name a car company.)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think the government telling you what day it is, and the government telling you what words are really part of your language, is quite on the same level of absurdity.
So a bunch of countries have language police. Your argument boils down to "waaaah everyone else is doing it!" ?
But let's assume that's a legitimate argument. A bunch of countries also, for example, regulate official weights and measures. What would you think if some major, well-connected corporation pressured the government into redefining the units used for commerce? Maybe Coca-Cola would like to get away with selling 1.8L bottles for the same price they used to sell two litres for but don't want consumers to notice the labelling change, so they pressure the government into defining a "U.S. Litre" as 0.9 metric litres. Now they can print "Net weight: 2.0 (U.S.) L" on the label. Equally absurd?
But I guess that's okay since "lots of countries" regulate weights and measures.
Liberty in your lifetime
I don't know what the rules are in Sweden, but many countries with official language institutes actually do enforce the official language in some contexts, for example text appearing on business signs, advertisements, &c.. Years ago Dunkin' Donuts was involved in a controversy in a French-speaking country over "Dunkin'" on their signs (that use of an apostrophe isn't legitimate in French apparently). At one point, the French were also enforcing the term cédérom be used for CD-ROMs.
Liberty in your lifetime
See my earlier comment; in many countries these language institutes do indeed have the power to enforce: Using unofficial language in commerce, such as on business signs or advertisements, is often prohibited. They may not be able to tell you what you can say, but if you put unapproved language on a sign, it can be handled like a code violation.
And no, they're not reactive,* they are quite pro-active: That's the entire point of this article, in fact; the Swedish language police refusing to acknowledge a word people are using because it upsets a big corporation. The OED is an example of a reactive lexicographic authority, but these government language police are the opposite.
* This is typically referred to in lexicography as "descriptivist" rather than "proscriptivist" lexicography. Descriptivist lexicographers document the language as used; proscriptivists try to tell you how it's properly used. English has a mix of both schools; proscriptivism was particularly popular during the Victorian era, but no actual government authority was ever placed behind it.
Liberty in your lifetime