Language Trainers Blog

A proposal made to the New Zealand Government to utilise a new word for same sex marriage has provoked debate.

Campaigner Russell Morrison, speaking at a marriage equality legislation public hearing, suggested “sarriage”  to be used to define same sex union. His explanation was that the word “marriage” is used to refer to a union between man and woman; so “sarriage” would make an appropriate term for married gay couples, “to make the situation clear for everybody”.

Rodney Croome, from Australian Marriage Equality, countered

“What is the point of assigning same-sex couples a different word when ‘marriage’ describes exactly what many same-sex couples already have, a loving, committed, long-term relationship?”

Does there really need to be a separate definition, when the word “marriage” should work equally for all? New words come about through several different ways. The way that the word “sarriage” has been constructed is clearly from blending “same sex” and “marriage.” Morrison’s explanation that this is because “marriage” is from a union between a man and a woman is prejudiced on several levels, not only as it alienates same sex couples, but also women. The word marriage is not termed thus because “man” is first – it’s derived from the Latin maritari (to get married), which could be used either in the masculine or feminine form.

This word isn’t a gender or sexuality issue, and should be left as it is to define a union between two people, regardless.

There are some trademarked brands which have entered the English language as the word to use for any brand of that item. Sellotape, Hoover and Biro are all examples of this. The one I tend to use the most is Google. The latest word to be added to that list is iPad, which now seems to be the generic term for a tablet computer.

The trouble with this, though, is that brands which become synonymous with the product’s identity often lose the trademark altogether. If it is legally deemed to be too “generic” to be a trademark, then inferior products can use the name on their own packaging. This can be demonstrated with the case of aspirin. Aspirin was developed by a German company, Bayer AG, and was registered as a trademark in 1899. The company held the worldwide patent, but in 1917, Bayer’s patent for the product expired. Following World War I, aspirin lost it’s status as a registered trademark in the USA, UK, France and Russia as part of war reparations. Today, Bayer still holds the trademark in 80 countries, which means that in these countries, the word Aspirin must be printed with a capital A. Aspirin is a generically used term in Australia and New Zealand. Bayer also held the trademark for heroin, which was trademarked in 1898 as a morphine substitute.