mike's web log

More Friday Fun. This week I celebrated 15 years as a full-timer at Microsoft. My colleagues at work took me out to lunch and presented me not just with the giganto crystal that you get from the company as your 15-year marker, but with a very cool present: a book. Not just any book, tho — it is, to quote the title page in full:

This was published in 1858 in London. (Actually, it’s the revised edition — the original was published in 1840.) It’s a beautiful little (literally little) book, bound in leather with an embossed title on the spine. Here’s a picture:

(The glasses are in fact required; the book is set in 6-point type.)

And here’s a picture of the title and faceplate.

The evening after the lunch, we were piled on the bed while Sarah read selections to us out of the treasury. There is of course a certain style to books written in the mid-19^th century, but Mr Maunder also has a distinct personality. Here he is in the Preface, introducing his work:

     There are few tasks of more difficult accomplishment, than the one which an Author feels bound to undertake, when a performance which has engrossed much of his time, and to which he has probably directed his best energies, is about to be submitted to the public. Literary usuage appears, however, to have decided, that upon such an occasion, some prefatory observations are considered indispensable ; but, while prompted by a natural desire to enter somewhat freely into the merits of that which has occupied his most earnest attention, the overwhelming apprehension of being thought egotistical, and the bare possibility of really becoming so, will often paralyze the Writer’s well-intention efforts. In the present instance, I can truly say, that my incessant occupation from the hour I commenced this volume to the very eve of its publication, coupled as it has been with an anxious desire to render it worthy of public favor, have left me no time to consider what arguments would most likely to fix the reader’s attention to the following pages ; in what terms I should entreat his kind indulgence ; or upon what grounds I could venture to deprecate the severity of criticism.

     May I be allowed to say, that I have endeavoured to produce a work, which — while I am fully sensible of its numerous imperfections — I trust, may be generally acceptable, and, I hope, extensively useful?

     I am well aware how natural it is for a person who is engaged in any particular study, or who has a predilection for some given topic, to be desirous of making himself as fully acquainted with it as possible, and to feel, perhaps, a degree of disappointment, where another person, with different views and pursuits, would be abundantly satisfied ; but the candid reader, I am persuaded, will grant, that a complete system of any science can hardly be expected in a work whose highest excellence must, after all, be a judicious brevity ; and that if the principles be clearly stated, they will often suffice till the details can be sought in works especially adapted for their elucidation. My great object has been to produce a book that should meet the wants and wishes of a very large and most respectable class of readers, whose opportunities of studying the ponderous tomes of science are as unfrequent as their aspirations after knowledge are ardent. To the literati, I know it can present few attractions ; to the man of science it presumes not to offer anything new. But there may be times, when even these may find it convenient to consult a hand-book of reference, so portable and yet so full, if it be merely to refresh the memory on some neglected or forgotten theme.

We decided that Our Author had certain predilections himself. For example, consider the contrast between the entry for Dog, which begins like this and goes on for about the same length again:

   DOG, (Canis familiaris), an animal well known for his attachment to mankind, his incorruptible fidelity, and his inexhaustible diligence, ardour, and affection. But when we thus describe this faithful animal, we mean those only which man has domesticated. In his wild state the dog is a beast of prey, and of the wolf kind, clearing the earth of carrion, and living in friendship with the vulture. By Mahometans and Hindoos the dog is regarded as impure, and neither will touch one without an ablution ; they are therefore unappropriated, and prowl about the towns and villages, devouring the offal, and thus performing the office of scavengers. Tamed and educated by man, the numerous good qualities of dogs have claimed and received the tribute of universal praise. Their sensibility is extreme ; witness their susceptibility of the slightest rebuke, and restless anxiety to be restored to favour. Uninfluenced by changes of time and place, these animals seem to remember only the benefits they may have received, and, instead of showing resentment, will lick the hand from which they have received the severest chastisement. The skill of several species in the chase, where they act as the purveyors of man ; their domestic habits ; their kindness to children ; in a word, their general congeniality with man himself, have, in all ages, recommended them to his use and care.[…]

… and the entry for Cat; this is it in its entirety:

   CAT, a well known domestic animal, of the feline genus, but sometimes wild in the woods, and large and ferocious.

For Friday Fun this week, I asked around about what corporate employees use as their nickname. For example, I work at Microsoft; we call each other Microsofties. I have it on excellent authority that people who work at Amazon call each other Amazonians, and so on.

For help, I asked my Facebook Friends, who are mostly folks in high-tech. I also enlisted the aid of naming expert and well-connected word person Nancy Friedman, who took the question with success to various lists of which she is a member.

Here are the names I've collected so far. Most of these are self-reported names, so I can't vouch for their accuracy in every case.

• Aiven: At this Finnish company, employees are crabs and the employees are collectively the Cast of Crabs. (Thanks to baby capu on Twitter) I do note that their careers page says that they want people who are "sideways thinkers" (i.e., move like crabs), so this name might not have originated organically.
• Aldus: Aldusians
• Amazon: Amazonians
• Ammex: Ammexians
• Arthur Andersen: Androids ("but not very loudly"). This is disputed (see comments).
• CIA: Spooks
• Citrix Systems: Citrites (Thanks to Jenny in the comments)
• General Magic: Magicians
• Google: Googlers   Fun: Noogler == "new"+"Googler" (source, via Edward Banatt on Twitter). Update: See also my update on naming at Google.
• Honeywell: Honeywellers
• IBM: IBMers
• Martin Marietta (pre-Lockheed): Martians
• Meta (formerly Facebook): Apparently Mark Zuckerberg wants to call employees of Facebook a.k.a. Meta metamates. But this isn't organically grown and doesn't seem to be particularly popular.
• Microsoft: Microsofties
• Mozilla (Firefox): Mozillians
• ngmoco: mofos
• Nordstrom: Nordies (Thanks to Nina in a Facebook comment)
• Peet's Coffee & Tea: Peetniks
• Pinterest: Pinployees (via Nancy Friedman)
• Procter & Gamble: Proctoids ("but not all of them embrace the humor of that name")
• Quark: Quarkians. (Thanks to Glen in email)
• Reddit: Snoos (source). A commenter alerted me to a leaked memo from Reddit CEO Steve Huffman with this not-obvious endonym.
• Shopify: Shopifolk (source). Because of the CEO's fondness for games, executive assistants are also known as expansion packs. (Thanks to Nancy Friedman on Twitter.)
• Tableau: Tabloids. See post on Tableau and endonyms.
• Twitter: Twizzles. Twitter user (and now employee) @Name_Inspector has a tweet about this.
• Washington Mutual: Wamulians
• Washington Post: Posties
• WICAT: Wicateers
• Wikipedia (contributors): Wikipedians
• Xerox: Xeroids
• Yahoo: Yahoos
• Zappos: Zappos Family or Zapponians

A couple of responses I got sounded a bit, dunno, corporate, tho I'm assured that these are in fact the right names:

• Disney: Cast Members
• Starbucks: Partners

There are some companies that I really wanted to get names for, but so far no luck:

• Adobe (based on Aldusian — a company absorbed by Adobe — I thought at least some contigent in that company might call themselves Adobians)
• Apple
• Boeing (two Boeing people told me they're unaware of any such nickname)

6 March 2012 Update I asked someone today who works at Tully's if they have a name like this. Not that she knows of, she said.

I'd be delighted to expand this list, should anyone be aware of more. (There must be hundreds, I imagine.)

Then there is the question of what we might call a nickname like this. A name based on a place is a toponym. A name for people from a city or region is a demonym. I solicited some ideas for this, too. We threw around corporanym and employeeonym. Someone suggested "idionym, which should mean roughly 'your own name'."

The most interesting suggestion was from Colleague Clay, who knows his way around a number of languages. He suggested ergazomenonym ("from modern Greek εργαζόμενου= employee"). I like it tons, although I'd need some coaching, perhaps, in how to pronounce it properly.

Another interesting exercise, which I have not delved into, is to try to deduce what sorts of rules might be at play in how these names are formed. When Nancy Friedman wrote about demonyms a little while ago, she referenced some rules that I won't repeat here but that go into some detail about the phonological basis for some of the names, and the various additional factors that obtain. I have no doubt that a similar (and similarly complex) set of rules could be deduced for the creation of these ... uh, ergazomenonyms.

So. Your thoughts?

Update, 2017 Sep 19: More on this fun topic here: Update on what employees call themselves

1. People come in and out to go to the laundry room, and they leave the man-cave door open.
   
2. The dog whimpers outside the door to come in.
   
3. The dog whimpers inside the door to go out.
   
4. The cat scratches on the door to come in.
   
5. The cat scratches on the door to go out.

If a child is ever the apple of her parents' eye or an idea seems as old as the hills, if we are at death's door or at our wits' end, if we have gone through a baptism of fire or are about to bite the dust, if it seems at times that the blind are leading the blind or we are casting pearls before swine, if you are either buttering someone up or casting the first stone, the King James Bible, whether we know it or not, is speaking through us. The haves and have-nots, heads on plates, thieves in the night, scum of the earth, best until last, sackcloth and ashes, streets paved in gold, and the skin of one's teeth: All of them have been transmitted to us by the translators who did their magnificent work 400 years ago.