Bill Poser reports to stunned Language Log readers that (where does he
find this stuff?) some people think they can claim
family ownership of words. He disapproves. But why? So
Peri Fleisher is convinced that she deserves some cheap Google™
stock options on the grounds that before she was born
her great-uncle Edward Kasner (who died when she was 4) introduced
the number name googol on a suggestion by his 9-year-old nephew Milton
Sirotta? Sounds like a solid case to me! Kudos to Peri.
Greedy bitch? Sure.
But who said there's something wrong with
that all of a sudden? What're you, a communist?
Poser's just mad because he didn't think of it. I'm not so appalled.
In fact
I want in. The interesting thing about Fleisher's claim is that she doesn't say
she invented any word herself; the word googol has been in common use
for decades.
Her vague threats to sue are based on a mere feeling
of inherent right through
family connection and phonetic similarity. Well, my maternal grandmother appears
to have coined the word crump (a British food
term meaning fried bread
), so I should
have rights to that. And I see no reason why the relation should be as close as grandmother or great-uncle.
I feel sure that ancestors of mine have coined numerous other words. In fact I have
instructed my lawyers (Messrs Dewey, Cheatham and Howe of Boston and San José)
to prepare papers seeking a temporary injunction stipulating that I and my heirs
have ownership of, and retain all rights in, the following words and all words that
sound like them: the verb snuggle and all derivatives thereof
(e.g. snugglebunny); the adjective parsimonious;
the preposition of; and the nouns
crump, ether, parsley,
helicopter, oligarchy, and rhodium.
So hands off.