| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Huw Millington writes:
> > What is the differnece between lego, Lego, LEGO, legos, Legos, and LEGOS?
>
> Easy, it's always upper case and never has an s on the end.
>
> > When referring to the Lego Systems Inc company how to you spell it?
> > LEGO? Lego Systems, Inc.? Lego?
>
> The LEGO Group
>
> > When referring to a SINGLE plastic brick/plate/unit...
> > LEGO?, lego?
>
> LEGO
>
> > When referring to a BOX full of bricks/plates/units...
> > legos? LEGOS? Legos?
>
> LEGO
>
> I'm sure there's something on lego.com about the plural of LEGO but I can't
> find it right now.
Since LEGO is a brand name, the proper way to describe the brick would be to
call them "a LEGO brick" or "many LEGO bricks"
Adrian
--
www.brickfrenzy.com
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> Since LEGO is a brand name, the proper way to describe the brick would be to
> call them "a LEGO brick" or "many LEGO bricks"
I think LEGO has become much like Kleenex and Coke in usage. While the
*correct* way to ask for a soft piece of paper to wipe my nose is "Hand me a
tissue" , some may say "Pass me a Kleenex." As such, the plural to LEGO
would be LEGOs (note the lower case 's'). So saying "Give me my LEGOs"
could be construed as correct.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Orion Pobursky writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > Since LEGO is a brand name, the proper way to describe the brick would be to
> > call them "a LEGO brick" or "many LEGO bricks"
>
> I think LEGO has become much like Kleenex and Coke in usage. While the
> *correct* way to ask for a soft piece of paper to wipe my nose is "Hand me a
> tissue" , some may say "Pass me a Kleenex." As such, the plural to LEGO
> would be LEGOs (note the lower case 's'). So saying "Give me my LEGOs"
> could be construed as correct.
>
> -Orion
A personal story (it happened to a friend of a friend... well, no, it
happened to me...)
The LEGO Company sent me a letter many years ago in which they spelled out,
as plainly as can be, the proper usage of all their copyrights and trademarks.
As some people here have mentinoed, LEGO is the company name. As such, it
isn't a noun.
You can say, "That guy over there works for the LEGO company"
But who does that--we say 'That guy works for Xerox', or 'I work for Laidlaw.'
But more refined, and geting away from the proper usage vs the generic usage.
I try to type out "LEGO bricks" or write, "I would like that LEGO brick over
there", for it shows respect for the effort TLC puts into their product.
The icing on the cake, it's correct grammatically, and it's right with the
LEGO Company.
I go to a friends house and they say, 'look at my kids playing with legos',
when the poor kids are playing with (mostly) MegaBloks (and here's
something--I don't know if I spelled that company's name right--I never
examined them that closely, so my apologies if I didn't--is a slip out of
ignorance and not malicious intent).
See, this is the issue that TLC wishes to avoid (they stated as much in
their letter to me). As others have pointed out, Coke, Xerox, Kleenex, and
Asprin (and others) have lost the significance to their name. Now anyone
else can use these company names when describing something which that
company did not produce--Pass me a Coke! (when in fact, I get a Pepsi, but
people know what I mean anyway...) The worst case scenario, I think, in
everyday usage, is kleenex. I mean, that company totally lost any rights to
their name at all.
Do I want that same thing to be facing my favourite company? Nope.
So say legos--I don't think TLC is going to send their LEGO company police
after you. As for me, it will (hopefully) always be LEGO brick(s).
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Orion Pobursky writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > Since LEGO is a brand name, the proper way to describe the brick would be to
> > call them "a LEGO brick" or "many LEGO bricks"
>
> I think LEGO has become much like Kleenex and Coke in usage. While the
> *correct* way to ask for a soft piece of paper to wipe my nose is "Hand me a
> tissue" , some may say "Pass me a Kleenex." As such, the plural to LEGO
> would be LEGOs (note the lower case 's'). So saying "Give me my LEGOs"
> could be construed as correct.
>
> -Orion
I agree with you about tissues, but I sometimes say "Coke" and usually
"Hoover the floor". With LEGO though, it's always been "playing with Lego"
to me. I don't equate "Lego" to mean "a single LEGO brick", such that a
collection becomes "LEGOs". To me, "Lego" is anything and everything
produced by The LEGO Group of Companies. My entire collection IS Lego. You
have tubs of Lego, shops that sell Lego. In fact, one element on its own
would be "a Lego brick" to denote its singularity.
I think that's pretty much how it is for everyone in the UK too. But, you
still hear people refer to MegaBloks as "Lego" (although there, the actual
company name is the plural). Brand slippage is a worry, as it shows people
don't distinguish between your and your rivals' brands. Calling the bricks
"LEGOs" though is just an irritation.
And while we're at it, they're crisps, not chips. And they're chips, not
fries. And as for the French, mustard is YELLOW, alright? :)
|
|
| |
The only GOOD mustards are BROWN, OK? ;-)
Jason J Railton wrote:
> And while we're at it, they're crisps, not chips. And they're chips, not
> fries. And as for the French, mustard is YELLOW, alright? :)
--
| Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun Microsystems
| iPlanet Support - http://www.sun.com/service/support/software/iplanet/index.html
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
|
