Putting two words together

In Norwegian we put together words to make new words. We have a grammar rule for when to separate two words that together creates a meaning, and it goes like this:

Never.

Now thats quite easy to remember, so in Norwegian “grammar rule” is “grammatikkregel”, “rubber tire” is “gummidekk” and “guitar buddies” is “gitarkameratene”.

For quite a while Norwegian press has referred to a band as “de nye gitarkameratene”. The musicians first using the name “Gitarkameratene” now reacts to this, claiming that it’s disrespectful to use this word that they “invented”.

For me, I have a problem with this. I mean, if the word was something like “Kraputtvoltgitarkameratene”, surely, this *IS* a new word, but just putting together two common words, creating another common word is something we all *should* be doing according to Norwegian grammar rules, hence such a word can not be owned by anyone.

To make sure this kind of stupid debate rises once again in the future I wrote a small script to fix this.

for i in $(cat words.txt) ; do
    for j in $(cat words.txt) ; do
        echo $i$j
    done
done

I ran the script on a Norwegian dictionary, but I didn’t bother to remove all the double words first, so many entries are now put together by 3 or 4 words.

Anyway the output file is about 2TB, so I can’t post it here, but if anyone can lend me some server space, I’ll publish this new word list on the conditions that everyone can use any word in this list as they want forever.

– But I will always know that I created many of these words first 🙂

6 thoughts on “Putting two words together”

  1. I don’t think the issue is that Gitarkameratene “owns” the word. It’s that another group (and the press) should not be using their name in that way for advertising and public relations purposes. (Although I don’t know Norwegian law, the original group may indeed “own” the right to use the name as a band.)

    It is also — as the real Gitarkameratene points out — disrespectful, especially if you’re applying it to a group of young (albeit popular) singers who simply don’t have the depth of experience or artistic output that Gitarkameratene has.

    A English language posting explaining it can be found at: http://multemusic.com/2009/05/04/norwegian-prime-minister-offends/

    The “new” group should not be called (even as a nickname) “Gitarkameratene”. Their name is Lind/Nilsen/Fuentes/Holm.

    By the way, I’ve created the word “multemusic” (or “multemusikk” pĂ„ norsk). Don’t mess with it. 😉

  2. The group itself does not call themselves by the disputed name, but the press does. The press should be able to call them whatever they think is appropriate.

    By the way, when did being used as the measure for a term like “the new $YourName” ever become anything else than a compliment?

    As for “multemusic”, I won’t touch it, but when it comes to the Norwegian word “multemusikk”, it was created by a script yesterday, and I claimed to give everybody every right to use this word as they like. I will not rename my site “dennyemultemusikk.no” anyway.

  3. Putting two words together: “coca” and “cola”?

    When I put words together it is a part of my work as an artist and songwriter. Edvard Grieg put common chords together.

  4. Yes, and you put them together well in your songs. But in Norwegian language this is what we do for common words. The lyrics of a song is much more complex than this name.

    Could Grieg brand just two common chords put together?

    I would not know that coca cola was a drink if it was not for the famous drink. I would know that gitarkameratene was two or more friends playing the guitar together, even if it was not for the famous group Gitarkameratene.

    As in general, a natural word is seldom used as a brand in Norwegian. This is because it is against Patentstyrets policy:

    “Et varemerke kan registreres bare dersom det er egnet til Ă„ skille dine varer og/eller tjenester fra andres. Merker som kun angir varens art, egenskaper eller pĂ„ andre mĂ„ter beskriver varen, kan ikke registreres som varemerke. Som for eksempel “grovbrĂžd” for brĂžd eller “bringebĂŠr” for syltetĂžy.”

    When you got your brand registered, you were lucky to not be picked up by this rule. Or has this rule been created later? Do we have other examples of Norwegian brands like this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *