 | | 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)
| | | | | | |
