KLEENEX RUBBER PANTIES

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 3/1/05 11:46:25 AM, pmcgraw at LINFIELD.EDU writes:


> All this is true only if you ignore popular usage.   And why would a
> linguist do that?
> 
> If I heard someone ask for "a tissue," I would think they were being either
> affected or perhaps pathologically conscious of trademark law.   I never
> heard of "Kleenex rubber panties" and have a hard time picturing something
> that's both rubber and made of kleenex.
> 
I think your tongue must at least be touching your cheek here. So far as I 
know, you are correct in suggesting that Kleenex does not actually make rubber 
panties, but "Kleenex rubber panties" obviously means 'rubber panties made by 
Kleenex'--not rubber panties made of facial tissues. Kleenex does in fact 
market Kleenex brand dinner napkins and Kleenex brand dinner napkin dispensers; I 
doubt seriously that anyone (but a child) has ever concluded on the basis of 
the name that these were made of facial tissues.

As for "pathologically conscious of trademark law," I don't deny that the 
shorthand use of "Kleenex " in ordinary conversation is commonplace, perhaps even 
dominant in informal conversation. However, isn't it also true that people 
who do so do so with the knowledge that what they are doing is in fact 
shorthand, and that under the right compelling circumstances they would resort to the 
word "facial tissue" or some other generic term for the thing they were trying 
to refer to? Try Googling (i.e., 'using a web search engine') for " 'facial 
tissue' -Kleenex" and you will get 128,000 responses, the first one being from a 
web site that offers to help one purchase "facial tissues." Sure, some of 
these entries are from the manufacturers of competing products who do not want to 
be sued by the Kleenex brand owners, but most are not. And few, I think are 
"pathological." Rather, in this context it would be confusing to readers to 
offer to help them buy "kleenex," precisely because readers know that "kleenex" 
is   not REALLY generic. (Granted, anyone who made such a website offer would 
get a nasty letter from Kleenex's legal department, but while the fear of such 
a letter may be part of the website-owner's motivation, the lack of clarity of 
such a use of "kleenex" in this context must surely be paramount).

As for "ignoring usage," it is only by ignoring the FULL data of usage (i.e., 
taking into account only what people SAY in informal speech, as opposed to 
what they say in other registers, and, more importantly, what they KNOW about 
the words of the language) that one can justify calling KLEENEX "generic." 

It occurs to me that the whole terminological problem could perhaps be solved 
by labeling words such as KLEENEX "psuedo-generics" or "quasi-generics," at 
least for purposes of lexicography and other branches of linguistics. I'm not 
sure how the lawyers would take to that, but this is our profession, not 
theirs.