Subject:
|
Re: Lego pluralism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Apr 2001 05:21:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1154 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Dave Low writes:
>
> 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?
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 just the Amurkans who do it...
ROSCO
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
