 | | | | | |
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 what? The natural measure of lego is the "heap" (because however
carefully you sort it, it still ends up in a heap when you build) so the natural
thing to say is "Pass me that lego" if you want the lot, or "Pass me that
bit/brick/gear/2x4 plate" if you want a particular piece. There is no such thing
as "one lego".
I know this is a personal view, and many people (especially in the US) disagree,
but no-one in this thread had said it, so I felt I had to. If it means that I
hear or read "legos" once less often it will have achieved something.
Barney.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Barney Hilken wrote:
> The word "Legos" really grates on me.
When the subject/word comes up that is the best way I can describe it as well...
the fact that it '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.
Excellent analogy!
And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
> "Pass me those legos" is completely ambiguous: do you mean parts, sets, models,
> boxes or what? The natural measure of lego is the "heap" (because however
> carefully you sort it, it still ends up in a heap when you build) so the natural
> thing to say is "Pass me that lego" if you want the lot, or "Pass me that
> bit/brick/gear/2x4 plate" if you want a particular piece. There is no such thing
> as "one lego".
For whatever reason I would tend to say 'pile' of LEGO but I think the intent is
the same. And for those looking to use the word in a plural sense your
paragraph speaks volumes. You could look at a sculpture and say, "look at what
you can do with just LEGO bricks!" Or, you might look at a set on the shelf of
a store and say, "wow, I can't wait to get home and build with all these LEGO
bricks, plates and wheels." You're right, there is no such thing as "one LEGO".
> I know this is a personal view, and many people (especially in the US) disagree,
It is personal, but is also what the company has set out for usage guidelines.
I would suggest that unless you have some overwhelming reason to not follow
these rules (such as your editor has threatened to fire you from your job on the
newspaper) then why not just use them as asked? It's not that tough.
And for what it's worth Barney, you are not alone. There are many who agree
with you.
> but no-one in this thread had said it, so I felt I had to. If it means that I
> hear or read "legos" once less often it will have achieved something.
Well said. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Barney Hilken wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Excellent analogy!
>
> And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
> is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
...
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 Harshbarger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Eric Harshbarger wrote:
> > > 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.
> 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.
Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural
form.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural
> form.
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 on offer. It's always "Let me eat that food".
"Sands" is similar. "The sands of time" is a poetic phrase, and it's not clear
what the "sands" are. Normally "sands" means beaches, deserts etc. but not
individual grains.
This is exactly my point about "legos": it isn't clear what is plural. It could
be pieces, or types of piece, or models, or sets, or piles, or collections, or
themes, or even brands (though TLC wouldn't like that usage!). Personally, I
think there are three legos in the world: duplo, standard lego, and that mini
stuff used by architects.
Barney.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Allan Bedford wrote:
> And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
> is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
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 apply to LEGO.
Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in context? As
long as the corrupted pseudo-plural can retain any traction in popular usage,
then TLG's efforts to maintain the brandname's purity are doomed!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> 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 apply to LEGO.
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. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> > 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 apply to LEGO.
>
> 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. :)
Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span
hardly let's get to the end of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Dave Schuler orrex@excite.com wrote:
| |
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 apply to LEGO.
|
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. :)
|
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 or else they are at risk of losing their trademark.
I bookmarked this site a long time ago, during one of the previous discussions
on this topic.
http://www.ggmark.com/guide.html
See point 2 in particular. See also
http://www.ggmark.com/protect.html
and in particular
‘A mark may be abandoned “unintentionally,” when the trademark owner fails to
use it properly, or fails to monitor its use by others. “Improper use” is use
which places the mark in danger of becoming generic. Thus, marks should be used
consistently, and distinctively, to enhance their source-identifying function.’
So based on that, TLC have to ask people(1) to use it correctly. (that is, as an
adjective, and distinguished somehow, for example in all caps) What the
people(1) they ask actually DO is a different story, but TLC can’t, in my view,
stop asking.
If you like the company, or if you like the capitalist system in general (2),
you’ll respect the request. Disrespecting it suggests that you dislike at least
one of the two. At least to me it does... YMMV.
It’s just one lawyer’s opinion of course, but it squares with the other research
I’ve done into this, including some caselaw I’m not going to cite at the moment.
And while I am no expert, I do have a trademark of my own that I’d like to
protect(3) so the topic is of some interest.
++Lar
1 - and journalists! Not to say they’re not people.
2 - and with it the notion that it’s legitimate for companies to market, have
a brand identity, advertise, care about their image, want to be distinguishable
from their competition, etc.
3 - Milton Train Works™, a proud member of the
Guild of Bricksmiths™ (4)
4 - Bolding is an acceptable mechanism of
highlighting. So is underlining
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word
> "LEGO" as an adjective or else they are at risk of losing their trademark.
Yes, that's a very well-grounded opinion. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
> uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
> incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
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 side of the street, where companies who don't have to worry about their
trademarks being diluted actually want you to think "Widget(tm)" instead of
"gear" because it means you're more likely to buy brand Widget over brand Gizmo.
> Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
> anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in
> context?
Clearly there are, as many parents see all LEGO-style bricks as being "legos",
regardless of manufacturer. And in this case, unlike with automobiles, it
actually hurts the name-brand company to have a bunch of other companies
mooching off their reputation.
> As long as the corrupted pseudo-plural can retain any traction in popular
> usage, then TLG's efforts to maintain the brandname's purity are doomed!
They don't need to utterly eliminate incorrect usage of their trademark to have
made the effort worthwhile. Victory is often measured in drops rather than
oceans.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
> > uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
> > incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
>
> 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 side of the street, where companies who don't have to worry about their
> trademarks being diluted actually want you to think "Widget(tm)" instead of
> "gear" because it means you're more likely to buy brand Widget over brand Gizmo.
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.
> > Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
> > anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in
> > context?
>
> Clearly there are, as many parents see all LEGO-style bricks as being "legos",
> regardless of manufacturer. And in this case, unlike with automobiles, it
> actually hurts the name-brand company to have a bunch of other companies
> mooching off their reputation.
Eeek! Good answer! And I, the clone-guy, didn't even think of that. Oh, well.
They're all Legos anyway, right? 8^P
Dave!
| | | | | | |
