Subject:
|
Re: How to properly call "the Birck" was Re: Can some do this or tell me of who is this?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:21:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
