Some words have been removed from this dictionary following a copyright claim.

Today on Twitter, Andrew Ellard posted this link:

"Google has forgotten one thing: language development doesn't care about brand protection." #dontbeevil thelocal.se/46940/20130326...

— Andrew Ellard (@ellardent) March 26, 2013

Apparently,

US search engine giant Google has successfully put pressure on the Swedish Language Council to remove an entry from its recently released list of new Swedish words. In December, the council unveiled its customary annual list of new Swedish words. Among the words that Swedes had begun using in 2012 was "ogooglebar" ('ungoogleable'). The California-based multinational soon got into a huff, asking the council to amend its definition. But the language experts refused to bow down to the demands, instead choosing a third option --- removing the term all together. "Instead, we're removing the word today and stating our displeasure with Google's attempt to control the language," Language Council head Ann Cederberg said in a statement. ... "It would go against our principles, and the principles of language. Google has forgotten one thing: language development doesn't care about brand protection."

I would like to add, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Swedish Language Council …

is the primary regulatory body for the advancement and cultivation of the Swedish language. The council is partially funded by the Swedish government and has semi-official status. The council asserts control over the language through the publication of various books with recommendations in spelling and grammar as well as books on linguistics intended for a general audience, the sales of which are used to fund its operation. ... The Swedish Language Council has its roots in the attempt to assert control over the official language use among the Nordic countries.

In short, that is to say, it is a silly body that exists to try to control what is and is not correct Swedish. It is the linguistic equivalent of the Indiana Pi Bill, or at least of the popular misconception of it. It is less Galileo mapping the heavens than it is the Catholic Church demanding that facts conform to their prejudices.

I suspect it’s a little more knowing than that makes it sound. More inclined to nudge the language than claim literal authority. It’s hard to be sure. Many countries have just such a quaintly absurd body — we nearly had one here before the Great Fire of London mercifully distracted everyone — and I presume there’s a spectrum between insane prescriptivism and sad acceptance of their own irrelevance. But in any case the irony is amusing: you can’t control something as natural and free as language, they say to Google, because that’s our job. The language will not respect the wishes of large, multi-national companies: it will respect the wishes of medium-sized, national bodies. No, Google, says the popular misconception of King Canute, I refuse to pass on your instructions about what the tides shall do.

Damn, but knowing the real versions of popular urban myths is inconvenient for metaphor.