Web lists-archives.com

Re: Thunderbird e-mail failure




On 2019-01-01 03:40, Daniel wrote:
Wolf K wrote on 1/01/2019 11:55 AM:
On 2018-12-31 15:25, PietB wrote:
[...]

You're learning fast; not a member of the mindless masses? :-)
Even better: "Search engines are your friends". That would
be a good start for 2019.

-p



It just doesn't have the same ring to it, though. Those slushy fricatives just don't cut it. A good catch phrase must not only mean what it says, it must have a certain rhythm and sound. "google" has become a generic verb for "search on line". Google may not like that use of its trademark, and you may like it even less, but there's not much they or you can do about it. English speakers generally don't give a rat's ass for such niceties. They'll use the words they want, how they want, when they want.

That's life.

You're welcome,

Here's a question I should ask Google .... "What did 'Google' mean 30, 50 years ago??"

I wonder what the answer might be!! ;-P

The word was coined by Google. It has become a generic word, as several online dictionaries report (I googled "google". ;-) ) There are different stories of how they come up with the word. Here's one which seems plausible enough, especially the misspelling bit:
https://skillcrush.com/2013/11/12/horribly-google-called-google/

Some people have used "goggle" as an alternative word, possibly because a) it means "to stare at", which meaning is easily adapted to "stare at lots of data --> search through lots of data"; b) they don't want to be seen as promoting Google; and c) they think "google" is a misspelling of "goggle"; and etc. Or something like that.

This shift from brandname to generic term happens often when a word is invented to label a new product or service. See what happened to "kleenex", which was a generic term for "facial tissue" when i arrived in this country many decades ago. Kimberley-Clark went to court to force public media to set it as Kleenex(tm), but it took about 30 years for the term to be replaced by "tissue" in common parlance. Tissues are made by many other manufacturers, so Kimberley-Clark has lost the linguistic link between the product and the brand. IOW, insisting that the word be used only when referring to its own brand has cost the company zillions of nudges towards purchase of their brand. They should have consulted linguists before going to court to "protect" their trademark.

Brand managers are a little more sophisticated these days, which may be why Google isn't objecting to "google" as a generic verb.

Best,

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called an "opinion" because it's not a fact.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general