Subject:
|
Re: Lego pluralism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:25:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
810 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Bryan Beckwith writes:
> Lots of people are missing the point. It is not an issue over "pluralism,"
> but an issue over brand recognition. I would refer everyone to the recent
> discussion, but it got pretty nasty and off-topic. If you use "LEGO" as a
> noun, "LEGOs" would indeed be a proper plural form. The idea behind the
> whole issue is that TLC was attempting to avoid their name becoming a noun.
> If LEGO bricks were known as "LEGOs", it wouldn't take long for competitor's
> bricks to become known as "LEGOs".
>
> TLC seems to have failed on this front, as many of us refer to our bricks as
> LEGOs and every time I go to my sister's house I get to see my nephew's new
> "LEGOs" (mostly Megabloks).
Okay. I've searched, I've found, I'm biased, and here are the results.
Please note that all this is from the perspective of North American law and
the English language, neither of which may have anything to do with European
law and the Danish language.
LEGO is a trademark of the LEGO Company. Under American law,[1] a trademark
is a proper adjective, and as such should not be used in the plural or
without an associated generic noun.[2] This advice is promoted by
corporations,[3] and the International Trademark Association.[4]
However, this recommendation is obviously at odds with common usage,[5]
which is why the ads say "Coke is the real thing" not "Coca Cola carbonated
beverages are the real thing". It seems to me that trademarks are in fact
proper nouns that can be used as adjectives, like any other noun.[6]
However, declining a trademark (giving it a possessive " 's " or plural "s")
causes it to gain the generic nature of other nouns. Eventually this can
cause the word to lose its status as a trademark.[7] The whole "trademarks
are adjectives" concept arises because, unlike English language nouns, our
adjectives have neither case nor number. Which makes it easier for lawyers
to understand. So LEGO is a proper noun, often used as an adjective, that
refers to a product of the LEGO Company. For about thirty years the product
was almost always a set of plastic building bricks, as in the comment "I
played with LEGO [blocks] and ate an OREO [cookie]."
But wait, there's more! As a consequence of its non-declinable status, LEGO
(as a synonym of LEGO bricks) is also non-countable noun. Non-countable
nouns are related to collective nouns and cannot be made plural.[8] Many
materials that are used in sculpture and building are non-countable: clay,
bronze, marble, terracotta, mortar, timber, sandstone. I'd include LEGO in
the list.
I find the term "legos" peculiar. As far as I know, it is a uniquely
American usage. I never encountered it growing up in Australia and that
probably explains a lot of my irritation when I encounter the term. Beyond
that prejudice, I think there are several reasons to discourage the term, in
the general community and particularly among AFOLs.
(1) Treating "legos" as a generic term for plastic interlocking building
bricks will result in the LEGO company losing its trademark. This may be
inevitable. Obviously this concerns the LEGO company more than us, but
there's no need for us to make a point of hurting their trademark.
(2) "LEGO" is quite usable as a non-countable noun. "I ate three OREO
cookies" cannot to my ear be twisted into the phrase "I ate three OREO". On
the other hand the word "bricks" is optional in the sentence "I built a
working replica of George W. Bush out of LEGO [bricks]".
(3) "Legos" seems to invariably refer to the basic bricks that hurt when you
step on them. This reduces the many other connections that people can make
between the various elements in the LEGO system -- particularly between
DUPLO and LEGO proper, and LEGO proper and Technic.
(4) "Legos" implies that there is such a thing as a "lego". While you can
obviously take a single brick, its whole essence is that it connects with
other bricks. Individually trivial, but collectively powerful. I suggest
that "a lego/some legos" is much less useful than the unitary concept of "LEGO".
--DaveL
[1] http://www.kelleydrye.com/nov94.htm#bfn1 is an excellent introduction
[2] http://www.furman-kallio.com/pages/pubs/Other/proper_trademark_usage.htm
sets out the rules quite clearly
[3] eg http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/ and
http://www.nuon.tv/usage_guide.html
[4] http://www.inta.org/basics/tmfaq.shtml
[5] see comments at http://www.freelanceonline.com/messages3/7514.html and
http://www.pasta.cs.uit.no/pipermail/wwwpalmdev/1999-April/001257.html
[6] I like pirate ships and dislike Monday mornings.
[7] see the list here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-usage-english-faq/
[8] http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/nouns.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego pluralism
|
| This is very good, and it embodies all that others have said - here and there, all in one, the word Lego in and of itself is and can be used as a plural in conjuction with other parts of speech, just don't tag an "S" at the end. Right? (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego pluralism
|
| Lots of people are missing the point. It is not an issue over "pluralism," but an issue over brand recognition. I would refer everyone to the recent discussion, but it got pretty nasty and off-topic. If you use "LEGO" as a noun, "LEGOs" would indeed (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
