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
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
Oh, come on.... you just have to embiggen your vocabulary a little. And 'ogooglebar' is a perfectly cromulent word.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Depratumate?
Bara för det, kommer jag göra mitt allra bästa att generalisera skiten ur ert lilla "varumärke", din jävel.
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
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.
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
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.
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.