Reply
Mon 1 Dec, 2003 09:51 am
Qwest、Verizon、SBC
(These are some company names of telecom industry in US)
As an ESL learner, I feel these names are weird, but how do you feel about them?
TIA
Qwest is weirdly spelled. It's based on the word "quest" and it's a telecom service for the Western US.
Verizon, I have no idea about, unless it's a play on the word "horizon". Maybe someone who lives in the Eastern US will know.
SBC must be an abbreviation, but I don't know of what.
In general, names like this are meant to sound appealing without meaning much. Just as car models are named these days. And they may be chosen to sound acceptable in other languages...
Yes... Qwest is an amalgamation of 'Quest' and 'west.' I have no clue as to what the latter two are about, but no one really considers brand names anyway. D'artagnan's right. The managers just think of any old crap name, and then market it...
But they often do consider the "feel".
Nokia is not a Japanese company (Finnish I believe) but intentionally used an oriental sounding name to leverage some of the "Made in Japan no longer means crap" feel.
Yes, Nokia is Finnish. The Finns are, by the by, the most "wired" people on earth.
SBC is an acronym--for what, i know not. But they've bought up most of the regional phone companies east of the Mississippi.
Oristar, Names of companies are just that--names. I'm sure that a great deal of time, energy, and research goes into the selection of a name (unless a company is named after a person). My local phone carrier service is Verizon. It was originally New York Bell Telephone. Then there was a merger, Bell Atlantic. Then another merger and another and another. Suddenly it was Verizon. A meaningless word that sounds like horizon. It doesn't make me feel anything.
Thanks for telling your feelings...
I've always assumed Verizon is a mishmash of the words vertical & horizon.
I think SBC = Southern Business Communications.
Actually, companies have to use slightly nonsensical words or weird spellings, don't they? Otherwise they get no trademark claims over the name.
For instance, the word "Windows" has deemed to be unsuitable for a trademark. At least, not enforceable in the way "XP" is.
Rounin wrote:Actually, companies have to use slightly nonsensical words or weird spellings, don't they? Otherwise they get no trademark claims over the name.
For instance, the word "Windows" has deemed to be unsuitable for a trademark. At least, not enforceable in the way "XP" is.
Quote:The word "windows" is a generic term that has been used widely throughout the industry for years. Countless products and companies have used the term "windows" as part of their name. Microsoft waited 7 years before filing for a trademark and, in part because so many other software companies used the term to identify software that used on-screen windows, the Trademark Office found the term to be generic and rejected Microsoft's application on two separate occasions. In 1995, after years of trying (this is the part we can't talk about yet), Microsoft finally got its trademark despite the existence of dozens of others uses of the term at the time. Lindows.com believes the evidence will show that Microsoft has no legitimate right to a trademark for the word "windows" and that consumers are not confused between Microsoft Windows XP and LindowsOS.
So, the word "Windows" is in fact sensible without "slightly nonsensical meaning", though it has been commonly used before being a trademark.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace