 | | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
The word "Legos" really grates on me. It's not that lego is like sheep where the plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural. "Pass me those legos" is completely ambiguous: do you mean parts, sets, models, boxes or (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) When the subject/word comes up that is the best way I can describe it as well... the fact that it 'grates' on me. (...) Excellent analogy! And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone is saying the equivalent (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) ... (...) ... Ok... I *have* to jump in at this point. Since when does 'sand' NOT have a plural? It has been pluralized throughout the sands of time. Merriam-Webster, and every other reputable dictionary will back me up on this. Eric (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however incorrectly it might (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural form. Dave! (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or "Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or "Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span hardly let's get to the end of (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the other (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Still, I've heard people say "I'd never buy a Ford" or "Fords suck" or that kind of thing, so at some level it is true that people can equate a brand with all subsets of the brand. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. (...) Eeek! Good (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) But "food" and "foods" are not interchangeable. "Foods" means different types of food. You can say "Some foods give me heartburn" meaning cheese and pastries, but not "Let me eat those foods" even if there's a whole buffet of different things (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Well, there are two things a play here... what people(1) *want* to do, and what companies *have* to do if they want to preserve their property. It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word "LEGO" as an adjective (...) (20 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Yes, that's a very well-grounded opinion. :) (20 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
