COKE in the South

[Wilson Gray]

So, the term that I remember from my childhood as generic, "soda
water," has now fallen out of use?

-Wilson Gray

On Mar 3, 2005, at 9:04 AM, RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject:      COKE in the South
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> In a message dated 3/2/05 9:46:09 PM, stalker at MSU.EDU writes:
>
>
>>>
>> =20
>> I like this.=A0 Southerners, who use Coke generically,(note those
>> non-restrictive clause commas) are aware of the legal sense of the
>> term an=
> d
>> are rejecting it.=A0 Does this correlate with the "save your Dixie
>> cups; t=
> he
>> South will rise again: syndrome?
>> =20
>> Jim
>> =20
> COKE is an important example, and In thank Jim for reminding me of it
> and=20
> making me give it some more thought.
>
> JIm's nonrestrictive clause commas are wrong, but it would be
> difficult to=20
> maintain that the shorthand use of "cokes" by SOME Southerners
> sometimes bor=
> ders=20
> on the generic. In my experience after living nearly 40 years in
> North=20
> Carolina (I haven't checked this against any empirical data), there
> are SOME=
>  people=20
> who use "cokes" (almost always in the plural) to refer to soft drinks
> in=20
> general, though they are fading out in areas where the large number of
> immig=
> rants=20
> from the North are often confused by such utterances as, "What kind of
> cokes=
>  do=20
> y'all have?" Most frequently, it seems to me, there use is plural.
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that there may not be some examples of
> partial=20
> genericide still underway in contemporary culture. TRAMPOLINE is a
> fairly re=
> cent=20
> example of a term that lost its trademark status. THERMOS is another
> that ha=
> s=20
> some kind of borderline status. Sometimes words do indeed undergo what
> the=20
> lawyers call GENERICIDE, and maybe COKE has done this for some people:
> COKE(=
> S) may=20
> have some kind of double-meaning for some people, i.e., a dictionary
> that=20
> properly describes COKE for some Southerners might should have entry
> #1 for=20=
> the=20
> trademark status and #2 for the generic use. But such people are a
> decided=20
> minority in the US, and I suspect that they are dying out in the face
> of dia=
> lect=20
> mixture and, of course, modern advertising. And, no, they are not
> "rejecting=
> "=20
> the specific association of COKE with COCA COLA, though they may be
> making a=
> =20
> parallel use of the word. Note that this process is not peculiar to
> trademar=
> ks.=20
> For example, "french" is sometimes used as a verb meaning 'kiss with
> the mou=
> th=20
> open and the tongue protruding'. But people who say, "Tom frenched
> Tony" are=
> =20
> not thereby "rejecting" the association (of the phonemic sequence
> found in=20
> "french") with the proper noun "French."
>
> Obviously, there is something of a genericide continuum for trademarks
> and=20
> erstwhile trademarks from true generics (aspirin) to trademarks that
> are nev=
> er=20
> used generically. Again, all I am suggesting is that it behooves us
> as=20
> linguists and lexicographers to use terminology that reflects the
> linguistic=
>  knowledge=20
> of native speakers as accurately and fully as possible.=20
>