ice box (was: obsolescene [was church key])

[Laurence Horn]

At 8:42 PM -0500 2/28/05, sagehen wrote:
>  >I used to wonder whether "Frigidaire" or "refigerator" was the source
>>of "fridge." After consulting many English-French dictionaries and
>>seeing many French movies wherein "refrigerator" is translated by
>>"frigidaire," and the fact that my mother and my grandmother *always*
>>used "frigidaire" and never "fridge" for any brand of refrigerator, my
>>vote is for the brand name as the source.
>>
>>-Wilson

I always wondered the same, and never could decide which was the real
story.  (Guess that's what turned us into linguists, right?)

>  ~~~~~~~~~~
>I agree.  In fact I made much the same argument in an exchange on another
>list."Frigidaire" was one of those inspired brand names like "Kleenex" that
>became the generic. It may not be so universally used now as it was in the
>40s & 50s, since now we just say "fridge."

But in the case of most of those brand names that become generics
(paronomasia, I think it's called), it's more the successful
marketing of the product itself that does it than the brand name,
however clever it may have been.  If Scotties had outpaced Kleenex,
or Pepsi Coke, we'd be calling tissues scotties and soft drinks pepsi
(in some places), I dare say.  Or "curad" as opposed to "band-aid".
Similarly, take two products associated with companies (once) based
in Rochester, NY:  Kodak for small, easy-to-use affordable cameras
and Xerox for copy-machines.  The fact that we have the generic noun
(and verb) "xerox" but not the generic noun "kodak" (although
obviously we have "Kodak moment" and such) has to do with the early
and continued domination of the market in the case of one more than
in that of the other.  Or so I'd bet.  I'm sure Ron Butters, Roger
Shuy, et al. know much more about this stuff, but I enjoy speculating.

Larry