May 19, 2004
This post brought to you by Zug, Ugzug and Phidippides
Bill Poser at Language Log has a great explanation as to the preposterousness of "owning" a word (note: I own the word "Zork" and hereby demand royalties of $5 for anytime and everytime that word is conjured up by anyone -- derivatives of "Zork" [i.e. Linuzork] preemptively included).
He discusses the latest shananigans from the long lost heirs of Edward Kasner, the mathematician who wordsmithed 'googol.' In part, they claim that Google has exploited the word for their own gain, capitalizing on his labor without dolling out any kind of ducat in return.
Ending Poser states,
Allowing people to own words would make life as we know it impossible. Only certain people, those with the appropriate licenses, would be able to talk about certain things. You wouldn't be able to talk or write about genetics unless you held licenses to use repressor and allele and so forth. You couldn't discuss syntax without licenses for E-language and foot feature and Determiner Phrase, and if you had them, you might find that you couldn't use, say, functional unification and thematic role in the same paper because of the restrictions in the licenses imposed by the proponents of rival theories. The mind boggles at the insanity of this idea.To add my own what if... imagine if a Spartan or Athenian demanded royalties for everytime the word "Marathon" was used because their ancestor, Phidippides of whom they are a direct decendent from, is the same guy who allegedly ran the first marathon -- (Herodotus later penned it in a Hellenic log or hlog, maybe he "owns" it). They then demand compensation (or reparations even) for the exploitation of their ancestors. If this was truly enforced, imagine all the company names, city streets, books, magazines and so on and so forth that would have to be taxed or purged. Ahh, but in steps Darl McDarius, a calculating Persian claiming direct descendance from King Darius suggesting that he is the one true owner of the word...
What about Hollywood and Bollywood? Do those studios owe descendants of Aristotle moolah for his development of the Three Unities?
Additionally, Isaac Waisberg shows the nonsensical nature of the owning-a-word mentality:
Andrew Galambos argued that ideas were the primary form of property, claimed a property right in his own ideas, and required his students to agree not to repeat them. In Against Intellectual Property (PDF) Stephan Kinsella writes that Galambos "took his own ideas to ridiculous lengths dropping a nickel in a fund box every time he used the word "liberty" as a royalty to the descendants of Thomas Paine, the alleged "inventor" of the word "liberty"; and changing his original name from Joseph Andrew Galambos (Jr., presumably) to Andrew Joseph Galambos, to avoid infringing his identically-named father's rights to the name."The very definition of asinine.
Don't forget Zug and Ugzug.
