4.0453 Trademarks and other Words (7/120)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Tue, 4 Sep 90 19:06:51 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0453. Tuesday, 4 Sep 1990.


(1) Date: Fri,31 Aug 90 08:30:01 BST (12 lines)
From: N.J.Morgan@vme.glasgow.ac.uk
Subject: Re: 4.0448 Words for Loan Words

(2) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 13:02:01 BST (28 lines)
From: Donald A Spaeth <GKHA13@CMS.GLASGOW.AC.UK>
Subject: A word query/brandnames

(3) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:49 EST (12 lines)
From: <DORENKAMP@HLYCROSS>
Subject: TRADEMARKS

(4) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 12:28 GMT (22 lines)
From: Don Fowler <DPF@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: 4.0444 Trademarks

(5) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:52:17 BST (16 lines)
From: DEL2@phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [4.0446 The Word "Moron", NT Language, &c.... ]

(6) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 15:14 EST (11 lines)
From: NMILLER@trincc
Subject: Re: 4.0435 Trademark Neologisms

(7) Date: Thursday, 30 August 1990 0020-EST (19 lines)
From: KRAFT@PENNDRLS
Subject: Tradenames and Dictionaries

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri,31 Aug 90 08:30:01 BST
From: N.J.Morgan@vme.glasgow.ac.uk
Subject: Re: 4.0448 Words for Loan Words (1/14)

I have never heard anyone in Glasgow refer to an American as a sherman
tank. But anyway, isn't this example of rhyming slang rather different
from the use of brand names as generic descriptors ?

Nicholas Morgan
Archivist, United Distillers plc
(and sometime research fellow in Scottish History at the University
of Glasgow)
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------40----
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 13:02:01 BST
From: Donald A Spaeth 041 339-8855 x6336 <GKHA13@CMS.GLASGOW.AC.UK>
Subject: A word query/brandnames

Norman Miller refers to 'hoover' as an American word (which Americans
do not understand), I presume because he thinks of Hoover as an
American company. But is it? British 'hoovers' are made in Britain,
and are in fact one of the few consumer goodies that are. We own
an Electrolux hoover, made in Britain (I think), although Electrolux
is Swedish; we also own a Hoover washing machine, made in Britain.

But the issue is more complicated than that (am I boring you?). There
are companies in Britain with the same name as American companies,
with no relationship between them. As a Pacific Northwesterner I
greeted with some surprise Safeway's markets, which even have the
same logo as the American company. The two companies are now
distinct. Woolworth's is an old established shop in Britain; the
company, which is a conglomerate, now prefern to call itself Kingfisher.
Mars produces chocolate bars in Britain, as in America. But the
American Three Musketeers is called a Milky Way here; the Milky Way
is called a Mars bar. There is no equivalent to the American Mars
bar.

As an American, I tend to make the arrogant assumption that the American
company (and name) was first and spread to Britain. How often am I
right, I wonder?

Don
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:49 EST
From: <DORENKAMP@HLYCROSS>
Subject: TRADEMARKS

"Jeep" may well be an acronym of sorts for a [G]eneral [P]urpose
vehicle, but surely that came after the lie-detecting little animal
called the Jeep appeared in the Thimble Theater (Popeye) comic strip.
Other characters appearing about the same time included Alice the Goon
and the Shmoos.

John Dorenkamp
Holy Cross College
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------32----
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 12:28 GMT
From: Don Fowler <DPF@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: 4.0444 Trademarks (2/23)

One aspect of the trademark question is that they can be ambiguous. The
most famous example is _Durex_. In Australia this is apparently a brand
of adhesive tape (British English _Sellotape_), in the UK its the generic
name for condoms (rubbers, but that's another issue). All my Australian
friends have claimed to have had the experience at one time or another of
going into a post office and asking for a large Durex.

Another issue is those brand names which cannot be used in some
countries because they have the wrong connotations. The classic examples
are the Rolls Royce Silver Mist in Germany, the Commodore Pet computer
in France, and the Vauxhall Nova car in South America, but there are lots
more (another computer one is the failed computer called here the One Per
Desk or 1PD, which unaccountably didn't make it in France). There are
said to be companies which check on this sort of thing for a large fee,
usefully providing jobs for linguists. With the changes in Eastern
Europe, there's going to have to be an awful lot of brabd names being
checked for rude meanings in Ukrainian.
Don Fowler.
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------30----
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:52:17 BST
From: DEL2@phoenix.cambridge.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [4.0446 The Word "Moron", NT Language, &c. (1/43)]

My thanks to Steve Mason for his support. Another term which does not
travel well is one which turned up very recently in my e-mail (I think
on HUMANIST); namely 'bugger'. Here it *only* means 'homosexual' and is
normally (outside the courtroom, in which buggery is or at least used to
be a crime) used only as a rude expletive.

On inflation there was an interview on BBC recently with an
american official in which the interviewer said 'that must
be an enormous problem' and received the response 'oh yes,
*very* enormous'. How far can one go?

Douglas de L.
(6) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 15:14 EST
From: NMILLER@trincc
Subject: Re: 4.0435 Trademark Neologisms (3/49)

Michael Hart's note about his Second and Third Edition Merriam-
Webster dictionaries without so much as a passing reference to the
political joking that went on at one time raises the question: is
everyone tired of the limp gags or too young to have heard of them?

NM

(7) --------------------------------------------------------------27----
Date: Thursday, 30 August 1990 0020-EST
From: KRAFT@PENNDRLS
Subject: Tradenames and Dictionaries

Since Michael Hart asked, my attempted clever reference to a "Webster's"
that was a real Webster was indeed a reference to the Merriam-Webster
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" (editions as cited), based on
Webster's New International Dictionary, etc. Trust me, Michael. But I
have no idea whether there is real continuity of a commercial as well as
a literary sort between these products and the historical lexicographer.
Perhaps.

But I am disappointed. Thus far, noone has offered information on what
a computer search of OED for "trademark" (etc.) would turn up. Can it
be that so few of us have convenient access to the electronic OED?
Won't someone test its versatility on this subject? I confess, I don't
have it at hand. Sorry.

Bob Kraft