No "Ungoogleable" In Swedish Lexicon, Thanks to Google 207
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."
A paradox? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A paradox? (Score:5, 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?
Re:A paradox? (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.
Re:A paradox? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, that is a pretty funny definition I wasn't aware of. But in any event, it isn't search-related so it is no threat to Microsoft's short term plans for the word. When they move on to their genocide, they may want to make sure that they can brand their dead-body-piles as Bing-brand dead-body-bings. :)
Re:A paradox? (Score:5, Funny)
A pile of trees...so like a very large bundle of sticks?
Re: (Score:2)
A pile of trees...so like a very large bundle of sticks?
Careful with that, boy, you're leaning dangerously close to fascism here.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I always thought they were named after the cherries.
What Would Crosby Say?
Re:A paradox? (Score:5, Informative)
We think of it as a big pile of detritus left over after excavating a mine. Somewhat apt maybe...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, but trademarks are only good for the product that they are used to brand. I'm pretty sure you can use "Word" to advertise a brand of pretzels - just don't try to sell software branded as "Word".
Required to defend it any way (Score:2)
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 wo
Re: (Score:2)
Just like you CANNOT trademark "Vehicle(tm)" or "Transportation(tm)" to name a car company.
No, but you could trademark "Vehicle" or "Transportation" for GPS software, where usage is not common. Just like MS did with "Word". If I tried to market a word processor as "MightyYar Word", I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3)
The real reason is that "obingbar" just sounds stupid in Swedish.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't "defending" Google so much as saying that it's our own fault that companies behave this way. If you want different results, set up a different incentives system.
Re: (Score:2)
What we have now are courts that behave like lazy and over-indulgent parents. If they would say no to the darling little spoiled brats once in a while we wouldn't see all of these behavior problems.
Re:A paradox? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is however doing nothing to prevent this usage, they are specifically targeting the usage of the word ungoogleable.
This is probably because they don't want anything to be ungoogleable. If something exists, but cannot be found in Google, then Google is not doing their job of making that thing searchable.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems pretty strange that the Swedish Language Council wanted "ogooglebar" to mean "something that can't be found in *any* search engine"
As far as I'm concerned, if I say something is "un-google-able" then I mean "I can't find it in Google"
For example, the search term ||= is ungoogleable [google.co.uk], but is it ogooglebar [duckduckgo.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
The Swedish Language Council does not define words, they document how words are currently being used. Unlike say France, Sweden does not have an opinion on how it's citizens uses and forms the language.
This also means that when your word turns up on the list the fight for any trademark is pretty much lost. Google might have made the case that most people in Sweden use Google and thus most people really mean Google. By now they are fucked though, every Swedish journalist and blogger will use it in the generi
Re: (Score:2)
Google is however doing nothing to prevent this usage,
Really? Check out Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com].
They also specifically ask that we respect their copyright for "Google" in this blog post [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the phrase I'm looking for here? .......Like some performer that doesn't want her mansion photographed?
Just Google It... Now I've made both Google and Nike upset. Actually, I'm sure Google isn't one-bit upset that their trademark has been verbalized. Wasn't there a campaign from M$ with celebrities saying, "Just Bing it" ?
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't feel bad. "Ubinglebar" didn't even make the shortlist.
I am OK with this (Score:2, Funny)
... seriously, we needed a word for this?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but there are a lot of esoteric concepts that don't need words, where the creation of words allows one to communicate a complex concept full of idiosyncrasies while retaining brevity. If I had to remove "esoteric" and "idiosyncrasies" from this post, I'd probably have to double its length to say the same thing.
Re:I am OK with this (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.
Re:I am OK with this (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
.
Despite these restrictions, there are many french cultural items that use english words, including a movie called Le Weekend [imdb.com] !!! The Quebecois also have a bugginess about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language [wikipedia.org] where Fr
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying more words is double plus ungood?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you're using the old dictionary. Better get a new copy (I mean... there was no old copy, so... erm) ... X0563511 REPORT FOR REEDUCATION!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Double google ungood.
Good? (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, come on.... you just have to embiggen your vocabulary a little. And 'ogooglebar' is a perfectly cromulent word.
Re: (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)
Re: (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)
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Re:Good? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think "need" is relevant to the development of new words.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's "making" the words (well, except truthiness). They arise out of natural usage as many individuals find the need to communicate a new or nuanced idea with brevity.
You do not need a mimeographed sheet to tell you the definition of "ungoogleable." It's obvious from context and construction. It's the exact word you would make up yourself to say "that piece of information is not of the sort you can find via Internet search engine." "Unsearchable" doesn't cover it because ungoogleable information is prob
Re:Good? (Score:4, Funny)
Depratumate?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a word for the popular leprechauns.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I see, you are already writing in 2048's reformed English.
Re: (Score:2)
All old things are eventually new again.
what about "Social Contract"? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Removed (Score:1)
So it's ungoogleable?!
Translation assistance needed! (Score:2, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
fukgooglebår
Re:Translation assistance needed! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, 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).
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually seen non-swedes try to use variations of it as an insult directed at swedes. They tend to get confused by the lack of reaction...
Re: (Score:3)
[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.
we can all do that (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but Google's position was that if the work WERE printed in the dictionary, it should be clearly marked as a trademark. The committee chose instead to remove the word altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not in a dictionary, it's one step closer to being ungoogleable.
Re: (Score:2)
Source: Google Translate
That's not cheating, right?
Still, 'zlatanera' will be there (Score:2)
'zlatanera', a Swedish neologism from the French neologism 'zlataner'.
See also:
http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/zlataner [wiktionary.org]
http://www.20minutes.fr/sport/1108105-verbe-zlataner-entrera-dictionnaire [20minutes.fr]
http://nesn.com/2012/12/sweden-adds-zlataner-to-dictionary-honoring-zlatan-ibrahimovics-dominance-on-soccer-field/ [nesn.com]
For those Curious (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
Re: (Score:2)
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
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. Even "Dog" in English is a genericized name.
Re:For those Curious (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Jello?
Jello brand jello is distinct from other brands of "gelatin desert product."
At least here in flyoverland USA the term "jello" is suitably generic, and covers all brands of fruit flavored gelatin.
Similarly with "coke" being generic for almost all kinds of soda, though "pop" is also commonly used. It retains specific brand meaning when used with other flavorings, like "cherry coke" though.
I would argue that genericisation happens when a product becomes ubiquitous. Jello was basically the pion
Re: (Score:2)
The law is retarded if it doesn't segregate common and commercial use of the term.
Well, it doesn't, but I think it's better than you think. The raison d'Ãtre of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion. If you buy a bottle labeled with the COCA-COLA mark, you should be able to expect the contents to have the same quality (taste, ingredients, etc.) and same origin as every other identically marked bottle. OTOH, if you buy a bottle labeled SODA, POP, or COLA, there are a lot of different things that i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
The original article (Score:3)
The inquirer [theinquirer.net] has the link to the original post [sprakradet.se]
Oh, Google Bar... (Score:2)
Natural result of government power over something (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 la
Re: (Score:2)
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 wor
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Natural result of government power over somethi (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 [sprakradet.se] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 dictionari
Do it the Ikea Way (Score:3)
Instead of googlebar make it ogööglebar.
Re: (Score:2)
And after assembling it they will have 3 letters left over.
oh, no, Google does no evil... (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks the AC is the idiot.
I did read the fraking article, you trog. Quoting the article; "Google does not own the language!" And the same thing was said in other articles this morning.
And I still stand by my comment, that a company, such as Google, that claims to have an ethical or moral compass or charter that it follows and then obviously bullies a country, is more evil than if MS were to do the same thing.
So, please, tell me why I am an idiot. And why you are a coward.
I am an idiot (Score:2)
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_lit [wikipedia.org]
I will be rewarded (Score:2)
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.
Googlewhack (Score:2)
It's here to stay now (Score:2)
3 different people in the office have already started using this word today. I imagine it will catch on like crazy now.
Good! Ogooglebar would be bad Swedish anyway (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's what we get from NOT having a language police. Språkrådet should just stop observing peoples sloppy and bad writing and instead dictate how we should write. Then they could simply choose the word "obinglingsbar" instead :)
Well, that does it (Score:2)
From now on, I'm using Yahoo! to google things on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a trademark issue; no copyright laws apply. Likewise, copyright reform doesn't apply here.
Typical Google fanboi hypocrisy (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't hear them complaining when their name started becoming a verb.
You are incorrect. This is them complaining about their name becoming a verb....
Re: (Score:2)