The most interesting story in this realm, to me at any rate, is the fact that the waterbed couldn't be patented because it was described in detail (meaning the idea was in the "public domain" already) in Robert A. Heinlein's novel Stranger In A Strange Land.

Hmmm ... this is not the first time I've seen this novel and author referenced, this week!

Undoubtedly, it is a case to prove, once again, that great California minds think alike. :)

It would be Friday Talking Points – writing, by my style sheet. That's an en dash, by the way, sometimes called n dash and written – in HTML.

If I remember right, Thomas Crapper did not invent the toilet, nor is the word "crap" derived from his name. He did have something to do with relatively-early toilets, though, short of outright invention.

Google is an intersting one, for the same reason sideburns are interesting. It really should have been "Googol" but either (a) the founders couldn't spell (which is their story), or (b) it was intentionally misspelled because a term in the common vernacular can't be copyrighted (why the "SciFi" channel had to become "SyFy" for instance).

The most interesting story in this realm, to me at any rate, is the fact that the waterbed couldn't be patented because it was described in detail (meaning the idea was in the "public domain" already) in Robert A. Heinlein's novel Stranger In A Strange Land.

-CW

Your comment raises several interesting points. I've been trying to think of multi-worded non-hyphenated brand names to use as examples, but all the ones that sprang to mind were mostly hyphenated ("Dial-A-Prayer" or "Rice-A-Roni" or even "Bowl-A-Rama"), so that was no help. Especially brands with "A" in the middle, which goes a long way towards explaning the almost-overwhelming urge to stick those hyphens in there.

The only oddity I could think of was the inclusion of non-standard exclamation points, as in "Yahoo!" and "Jeopardy!" but that's not really much help, because most people ignore such fripperies.

As for the capitalization, that is a long road which leads to a murky swamp. The English language has a process of assimilation (if Michale weren't out cruising around the sunny seas, I would insert a Borg joke here...), which normally takes the following path:

1. Capitalize correctly
2. Capitalize according to standard grammar rules
3. Capitalize or not, depending on what the editor ate for breakfast.

Eponyms are the best example. Now, I'm a stickler, so I almost always (when I catch myself) capitalize things like "Draconian" in due honor to Draco. But Draco lived such a long time ago that most have forgotten, and it's often used as "draconian." More recent eponyms are almost always capitalized ("Reaganesque" or "Clintonian"), because we still remember these folks. Likewise, the more famous the preson being honored, the more common it is to capitalize: "Herculean" or "Machiavellian" even though they're from the dim and distant past (and one is even fictional). But some have reached the point where the person has all but been forgotten, and the word has become a common noun: "chauvinism," "sadism," and "braille" spring to mind. Also, things like "bloomers" or "boycott" are almost never capitalized anymore.

In science, strangely enough, there are seemingly no standards. Sometimes names are continued to be honored (disease names, in particular), sometimes they are not (especially, for some reason, when they actually become a measurement: ampere, joule, watt, hertz, and many, many others).

Sometimes the name becomes mangled, as with "sideburns," along the way to its lower-case status. And sometimes it becomes a joke -- the man who invented the toilet was named "Crapper" (no lie). And sometimes it morphs into something entirely different, as with (electronic) "spam".

There there is the loss of brand names and, thus, proper names, as a brand is so successful in the marketplace it becomes generic. Things like "jacuzzi" and "diesel" spring to mind. This can even be cultural, as with Brits who "hoover" their rugs (with a Hoover vacuum cleaner, of course) -- the verb "to vacuum" barely exists over there.

There are plenty of companies who are fighting this assimilation with tooth and nail today, but in the long run will lose. "bandaid" is a perfect example. Its trademark is actually "BAND-AID" but nobody goes to that length anymore. Others on the chopping block (capitalization-wise) are "Kleenex" and "Dumpster" and "Styrofoam." Technically, these are never supposed to be used as nouns and are always supposed to be used in conjunction with the generic description of the product ("Kleenex brand facial tissues" for instance), but, again, nobody does anymore (who bothers with "BAND-AID bandages"?). Sometimes, due to overwhelming market share, these terms are adopted quickly (and sometimes verbized) -- such as "Google" or "to google".

So, while I can't make a strong case on the hyphenation front, in terms of capitalization the rule of thumb is that there is no real rule of thumb (rule-of-thumb?). It all comes down to what is referred to in genteel fashion as "usage" -- meaning each editor is free to capitalize or not as the whim takes him or her.

In future years, especially if the term survives beyond Romney, we may speak of "Etch-a-sketching" or even "etchasketching."

We here at the CW.com Mister Language Person Editorial Anal-Retentive Group, however, will continue to use "Etch A Sketch" for the foreseeable future. After all, we still use "TelePrompTer," for Pete's sake (and definitely not "for pete's sake")....

Now we must return to the task we are procrastinating, our weekly bout of Friday Talking Points-writing (Friday-Talking-Points-writing? Nah...). We'll get to the rest of the comments here later...

:-)

-CW

Flip-flopping suggests that you have no principles: You take a position pragmatically when it works, and then take a contrasting position when that's what makes sense. If you had taken the position as a matter of principle, you would have stuck with the principle in the second situation. (The possibility of nuanced principles is beyond the capabilities of political discourse. You can say it. It can even be true. But it can never get any political traction.)

Etch-a-sketching suggests that you may have principles, but they're not as advertised. You may present yourself as the most "severely conservative" of all the plausibly-funded candidates. But it's a picture that was intended all along to be erased, because in your heart of hearts you're truly a moderate.

I think Romney is a pragmatist, rather than a moderate. He'll do what works, for the political situation he's in. If (gods forbid) he becomes president, he will govern as a Republican -- as a doubled-down-on-the-crazy, outspend the Democrats ten to one, culture-war fanatic, fiscally profligate, anti-intellectual, Grover-Norquist-worshipping, A+-rating-from-the-NRA disaster. He isn't committed to any of that as a matter of "principle", but that's the party he belongs to, at the national level. His party's ideological groups are organized. They take names and kick ***. So the practical thing for a Republican in office to do is to check all the partisan boxes, every time.

Ironically, the main barrier to him becoming president in the first place is the fear that he wouldn't do so. The base of the Party knows that he isn't one of them, culturally. They understand that "principles" in political discourse usually are nothing more than tokens of identity politics. And group identity is so important to them that they can't completely believe that a politician would really be pragmatic enough to check all the boxes just because the incentives are there. So they won't have the level of enthusiasm that brings the apolitical majority of an identity-group to the polls at near-100% turnout rates.

And, that goes for any more of his protege, multi-millionaire friends who think they're entitled to buy high public office.

when a politician flip flops, the implication is that he or she might flip back. much like john kerry's "voted for it before i voted against it" moment, a flip flop is essentially a short term action that is part of a nuanced pattern. the more intellectual and trusting among us might call it understanding the different intricacies of the issue and voting differently based on the specifics of the moment. the less subtle might simply call it being a typical politician. you may seem to go back and forth with impunity, but it's really all part of the same sandal.

etch a sketching seems to me a somewhat different animal. romney isn't just trying to explain away his earlier positions, he's trying to erase them from history, as if he'd never taken them in the first place. i'd call his stance on health care more of a flip flop, while he has etched and sketched multiple times on abortion.