This is a programming-related question. In many programming languages there's a locale, which is the thing holding the information about number and date/time formatting, and similar stuff.

I have two functions: getLocalizedThingy and getNonlocalizedThingy. The latter name is terrible and I don't want to replace it with getEnglishThingy as it's not exactly that (it's meant to produce text which can be easily read by a machine, there's no thousand separator, etc.).

My search lead to no suitable antonym of localized in this sense.

  • Not from a programming POV, but how about "global"?
    – user3169
    Commented Sep 12, 2014 at 16:12
  • Maybe, though global has quite some connotations in programming.
    – maaartinus
    Commented Sep 12, 2014 at 16:20
  • Strange. My first choice would be just getThingy, as opposed to getLocalizedThingy. Commented Sep 12, 2014 at 16:34
  • @DamkerngT. Mine usually too, but many functions are localized by default, so I want to be explicit.
    – maaartinus
    Commented Sep 12, 2014 at 16:40

3 Answers 3


The purpose of localization is to take your raw data and format it according to local standards, right? So I would say that you should GetLocalizedThingy when you want "$1,000.00" and GetRawThingy or GetUnformattedThingy when you want "1000".


If you are using English strings as the "ID" then you might call that non-localized version in the source code the "Literal" string.

Of course, that is only suitable if you are using such an implementation. It wouldn't make sense if (for instance) you were passing in resource ID numbers to identify strings out of a string table.


Words which may work for you: general, global, universal. You may want to do the adjectivized-verb thing for parallel construction: generalized, globalized, and universalized.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .