 | | Re: Lego pluralism —Bryan Beckwith
|
| | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego pluralism —Eric Sophie
|
| | | | | That's what I just happened to call it at the time, But your right and there is a difference.... Thanks, I did'nt really look at it like that. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego pluralism —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego pluralism —Eric Sophie
|
| | | | 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? (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego pluralism —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) Almost -- by my understanding Lego is a substance like air or water that you don't normally count. So it doesn't even _have_ a regular plural form. The excellent explanation I referenced uses "oxygen" as an example.* You don't normally count (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego pluralism —Eric Sophie
|
| | | | | Well said, most Americans that enjoy speaking properly will already do this in practice, we, as Americans often speak very casually as a matter of social expression. Also, a growing number of Americans speak a broken sub tounge rooted in their (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego pluralism —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) I agree this is how the word LEGO *should* be used, but, as I witnessed on the weekend, most non-AFOLs also seem to use it incorrectly. As in "Pass me that flat blue LEGO", "how come you're hogging all the orange LEGOs?", etc, etc. So its not (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
