FRIGIDAIRE and KLEENEX (was ICE BOX)

[ronbutters at AOL.COM]

the issue is nor just what people say but what they KNOW. IT seems clear to me that most people know that KLEENEX is a brand name and that it is merely used by speakers in a shorthand way to refer to paper tissues (toilet tissue is a compound, by the way). People will think it is weird to say for example, "Puff Kleenex."


-----Original Message-----

From:  Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
Subj:  Re: FRIGIDAIRE and KLEENEX (was ICE BOX)
Date:  Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:23 pm
Size:  3K
To:  ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

At 10:55 PM -0500 2/28/05, sagehen wrote:
>  >In a message dated 2/28/05 8:40:55 PM, sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM writes:
>>
>>
>>>  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."
>>>
>>
>>Neither "Frigidaire" nor "Kleenex" is "the generic."

How about "a generic"?

>"Refrigerator" is
>>clearly "the generic" and has a shorthand form, "fridge" (cf. "televison" and
>>"telly"). "Frigidaire" is a brand name that is found on all manner of major
>>appliances, not just those that keep things cold.
>>
>>"Kleenex" is a trademark, not a "generic," though people do indeed use it as
>  >a shorthand for the generic "(paper) tissue."

Now, wait a minute.  This sounds awfully prescriptive.  If people use
it to refer to 'tissue' regardless of the brand name on the package,
how is this "not a "generic""?  Maybe we're using "generic"
differently.

>Surely there are very few
>  >people
>>who would not understand a request for a "tissue," or would be mystified
>>about such phrases and sentences as "a box of tissues" or "She used a
>>tissue to
>>dry her eyes."

How is that a problem for the view that "kleenex" is a generic for
"tissue"?  Nobody's claiming it's the only generic.  Ditto band-aid
(for adhesive bandages), jello, scotch-tape, etc.  In some cases, the
old brand name has become the unmarked label for the category
("jello" may be one such), in others, it's on equal footing with the
original generic ("Clorox" vs. "bleach", maybe "band-aid" vs.
"bandage", the latter being perhaps too general in reference), in
others (maybe "kleenex"/"tissue") the original generic is definitely
holding its own, but I don't see how that leads us to conclude that
"kleenex" isn't used as a generic for "tissue".

>Likewise, few people would be confused if asked to purchase
>>"Kleenex rubber panties" or "Kleenex cocktail napkins."
>~~~~~~~~~~
>You're talking technically, legally.  What we're saying (or at least I am)
>is that these two trademarks have become naturalized, figuratively
>speaking, and do function as the generic, even though the companies instead
>of simply glorying in their success choose to grouse about people's not
>capitalizing and  adding little  doodads.  I, as a matter of fact, would
>be puzzled by "Kleenex rubber pants" or "Kleenex napkins,"  but I am a
>dinosaur &  not always au courant with the new-fangled.
>AM
>
What she said.  If my wife writes "Kleenex" on the shopping list,
she's not asking me to buy Kleenex brand tissues, she's asking me to
buy tissues; if she writes "Puffs" or "Scotties", this isn't the
case.  (Nor does "scotties" or "puffs" show up in lower-case the way
"kleenex" often does--and when it does, it's always for the tissues,
I'd wager; not for the cocktail napkins or rubber panties.  And, come
to think of it, if X writes "Kleenex" on the shopping list, we want
to be able to predict that while X will be perfectly content if Y
brings back those Puffs, there will be a bit of consternation if Y
brings back Kleenex brand rubber pants...

larry
 FLAGS (XAOL-READ XAOL-GOODCHECK-DONE XAOL-GOOD)
--- message truncated ---