To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 29683
29682  |  29684
Subject: 
Re: Lego pluralism
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Tue, 17 Apr 2001 05:08:43 GMT
Viewed: 
764 times
  
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 communities often riddled with gramatical errors,
ussally it's just plain laziness.


In lugnet.general, Dave Low writes:
In lugnet.general, Eric Sophie writes:
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?

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 the molecules -- it's just oxygen. In chemistry though you'll
often refer to "oxygen molecules", particularly when you consider their
individual properties. So while you might say "One fish is swimming, three
fish are frying, most fish are aquatic" or "This LEGO brick is green, these
LEGO bricks are green, most LEGO is plastic" you'd never say "This [single
piece of] LEGO is green, these LEGO are green, most LEGO are plastic".

Anyway, I hope this helps. Does anyone disagree with my analysis? And does
anyone else find it interesting that it's Americans who seem to overlook the
naturally collective nature of LEGO?

--DaveL


*http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/nouns.html#ncntnoun



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

11 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR