Subject:
|
Re: Lego pluralism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:04:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
727 times
|
| |
|
|
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?
Thanks......Eric
In lugnet.general, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.general, Bryan Beckwith writes:
> > 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 be a proper plural form. The idea behind the
> > whole issue is that TLC was attempting to avoid their name becoming a noun.
> > If LEGO bricks were known as "LEGOs", it wouldn't take long for competitor's
> > bricks to become known as "LEGOs".
> >
> > TLC seems to have failed on this front, as many of us refer to our bricks as
> > LEGOs and every time I go to my sister's house I get to see my nephew's new
> > "LEGOs" (mostly Megabloks).
>
> 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 language.
>
> LEGO is a trademark of the LEGO Company. Under American law,[1] a trademark
> is a proper adjective, and as such should not be used in the plural or
> without an associated generic noun.[2] This advice is promoted by
> corporations,[3] and the International Trademark Association.[4]
>
> However, this recommendation is obviously at odds with common usage,[5]
> which is why the ads say "Coke is the real thing" not "Coca Cola carbonated
> beverages are the real thing". It seems to me that trademarks are in fact
> proper nouns that can be used as adjectives, like any other noun.[6]
> However, declining a trademark (giving it a possessive " 's " or plural "s")
> causes it to gain the generic nature of other nouns. Eventually this can
> cause the word to lose its status as a trademark.[7] The whole "trademarks
> are adjectives" concept arises because, unlike English language nouns, our
> adjectives have neither case nor number. Which makes it easier for lawyers
> to understand. So LEGO is a proper noun, often used as an adjective, that
> refers to a product of the LEGO Company. For about thirty years the product
> was almost always a set of plastic building bricks, as in the comment "I
> played with LEGO [blocks] and ate an OREO [cookie]."
>
> But wait, there's more! As a consequence of its non-declinable status, LEGO
> (as a synonym of LEGO bricks) is also non-countable noun. Non-countable
> nouns are related to collective nouns and cannot be made plural.[8] Many
> materials that are used in sculpture and building are non-countable: clay,
> bronze, marble, terracotta, mortar, timber, sandstone. I'd include LEGO in
> the list.
>
> I find the term "legos" peculiar. As far as I know, it is a uniquely
> American usage. I never encountered it growing up in Australia and that
> probably explains a lot of my irritation when I encounter the term. Beyond
> that prejudice, I think there are several reasons to discourage the term, in
> the general community and particularly among AFOLs.
>
> (1) Treating "legos" as a generic term for plastic interlocking building
> bricks will result in the LEGO company losing its trademark. This may be
> inevitable. Obviously this concerns the LEGO company more than us, but
> there's no need for us to make a point of hurting their trademark.
> (2) "LEGO" is quite usable as a non-countable noun. "I ate three OREO
> cookies" cannot to my ear be twisted into the phrase "I ate three OREO". On
> the other hand the word "bricks" is optional in the sentence "I built a
> working replica of George W. Bush out of LEGO [bricks]".
> (3) "Legos" seems to invariably refer to the basic bricks that hurt when you
> step on them. This reduces the many other connections that people can make
> between the various elements in the LEGO system -- particularly between
> DUPLO and LEGO proper, and LEGO proper and Technic.
> (4) "Legos" implies that there is such a thing as a "lego". While you can
> obviously take a single brick, its whole essence is that it connects with
> other bricks. Individually trivial, but collectively powerful. I suggest
> that "a lego/some legos" is much less useful than the unitary concept of "LEGO".
>
> --DaveL
>
> [1] http://www.kelleydrye.com/nov94.htm#bfn1 is an excellent introduction
> [2] http://www.furman-kallio.com/pages/pubs/Other/proper_trademark_usage.htm
> sets out the rules quite clearly
> [3] eg http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/ and
> http://www.nuon.tv/usage_guide.html
> [4] http://www.inta.org/basics/tmfaq.shtml
> [5] see comments at http://www.freelanceonline.com/messages3/7514.html and
> http://www.pasta.cs.uit.no/pipermail/wwwpalmdev/1999-April/001257.html
> [6] I like pirate ships and dislike Monday mornings.
> [7] see the list here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-usage-english-faq/
> [8] http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/nouns.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego pluralism
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego pluralism
|
| (...) 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)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
