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."

32 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. A paradox? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that mean that the word "ogooglebar" suddenly became ungoogleable?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:A paradox? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      It probably was until Google made an issue out of it.

      What's the phrase I'm looking for here? .......Like some performer that doesn't want her mansion photographed?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:A paradox? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

      The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:A paradox? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

      Oh, they do:

      1.1 A heap or pile: formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like

      If you don't like it, "bing" also seems to be an onomatopoetic word for suddenness with the connotation of destructive change. I'm not quite sure if that's better for MS.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:A paradox? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Because Google would hate the free advertising, right?

      They've already ticked the boxes for defending their trademark, if they get the free publicity they had to sacrifice in order to do so anyway they'll be delighted.

    5. Re:A paradox? by dintech · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a Scotsman, bing is definitely in my dictionary.
      We think of it as a big pile of detritus left over after excavating a mine. Somewhat apt maybe...

    6. Re:A paradox? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      A pile of trees...so like a very large bundle of sticks?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:A paradox? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ASPIRIN is a special case. It became generic in the US due to the mark holder being Bayer, a German company, and us being a little upset about WWI. They also lost the HEROIN trademark that way.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:A paradox? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The real reason is that "obingbar" just sounds stupid in Swedish.

  2. For those Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:For those Curious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      My "semantic widening" is a generification of your "generification". How's that for meta?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:For those Curious by swillden · · Score: 3

      Sandwich. Laundromat. Mac(k)intosh. Zipper. Wellingtons. Escalator. Thermos. Uhm, Xerox? This has been happening for centuries. If you study language development, this is completely normal.

      Sure it is. It's also quite destructive to a company's trademarks when it happens to affect one. It's possible to keep from losing your trademark even though it's becoming a common word by aggressively searching out print uses of the trademark and requesting that a trademark notice be added. The fact that it's used as a word in spoken language doesn't affect its trademark status.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:For those Curious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Another curious note - in English, Xerox sort of won. The words photocopier and photocopy are actually used in English now. In Russian, they lost - the verb used in Russian is still "to xerox" and I guess without many even knowing that it's a brand

      That may have something to do with the fact that the Xerox folks decided to name themselves after the generic name of the process, as in "xerography" or "xerocopy" (the process doesn't use any liquid solvents). If you do that, you can expect people to get confused. They should have named themselves The Carlson-o-graphica Company, and they wouldn't have any such problem now!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Re:Translation assistance needed! by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

    fukgooglebår

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  4. Re:Good? by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, come on.... you just have to embiggen your vocabulary a little. And 'ogooglebar' is a perfectly cromulent word.

  5. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Depratumate?

  6. The original article by pswPhD · · Score: 2

    The inquirer has the link to the original post

  7. Re:Translation assistance needed! by LongearedBat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bara för det, kommer jag göra mitt allra bästa att generalisera skiten ur ert lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

  8. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you don't want "newfangled words" than shouldn't you be writing like this?

    I see, you are already writing in 2048's reformed English.

  9. Re:Good? by Desler · · Score: 2

    Or just realize he's a moron? He uses plenty of "newfangled" words and spelling that didn't exist in, say, the 17th Century. For example:

    The English speach doth still encroche vpon it [Cornish], and hath driuen the same into the vttermost skirts of the shire. Most of the Inhabitants can no word of Cornish; but very few are ignorant of the English.

    Richard Carew, The Survey of Cornwall (1602)

  10. Re:Good? by Desler · · Score: 2

    All old things are eventually new again.

  11. Re:Translation assistance needed! by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    "Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker"

    That's actually what Google just prevented.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  12. Natural result of government power over something by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Literaphile · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. Do it the Ikea Way by anorlunda · · Score: 2

    Instead of googlebar make it ogööglebar.

  15. Re:Good? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.

    I'll keep this brief: yes, that is just you getting old.

  16. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Kidbro · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by MiskatonicAcademic · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Re:Translation assistance needed! by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Skiten" is "the shit". "Skit" is "shit".

    "Jävel/Djävel" means devil or demon so not exactly "motherfucker" but then I've never heard anyone who has Swedish as his/her native language call anyone a "mammaknullare" (I suspect mainly because in Swedish culture insulting someone's mother really isn't that big a deal while for some immigrants coming from cultures with a different view on this it seems like a good insult).

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  19. Re:I am OK with this by jc42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, in this case it was silly to have any official recognition of the Swedish word "ogooglebar", just as it would be somewhat silly to consider whether "ungoogleable" should be recognized as an English word. Both words are formed by adding standard prefixes to the base word. Thus, "o-" + "google" + "-bar" is a standard Swedish construction, just as "un-" + "google" + "-able" is in English. Most dictionaries don't bother listing such words, since a moderately competent speaker of the language will know those prefixes and will construct such words routinely.

    And note that, contrary to what some people have said, this wasn't done by a Swedish dictionary maker; it was a language "standards" committee. It is rather pointless (and silly) for such a committee to waste time with such questions. The "o-" and "-bar" affixes are already part of standard Swedish, and that's really all they should be concerned with. They might be concerned with whether "google" is listed as a verb in their list, but there's really little point in listing words constructed with standard affixes, unless the result has an idiomatic meaning that can't be deduced from its component morphemes.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  20. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Henriok · · Score: 2

    Bara för det, kommer jag göra mitt allra bästa att generalisera skiten ur ert lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

    [Bah-rah fir debt commer yog yirah mitt ahl-rah bess-tah aht yenneh-rawl-ee-seh-rah sheet-en ew-r yeert lillaw varoo-myrrh-kay, dean yeah-vell.]

    with a very large amount of salt. There are several sounds, especially vowels, that just doesn't exist in English.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  21. Re:I am OK with this by jgrahn · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is rather pointless (and silly) for such a committee to waste time with such questions.

    The point *is* being silly. Most people like a bit of silliness. This group's yearly list of new words gets a lot of media attention in Sweden, and reminds people that the language is slowly being reshaped by what we do.