Subject:
|
Re: Acronym acrimony
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jun 1999 07:24:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
669 times
|
| |
|
|
> I would prefer "LG" as the "L" is intuitive. I think the "T" is in there • just
> so folks don't have to type "the", as it's designation in the acronym is so
> that people reading know that the subject in question is the corporation or
> group of companies it/themselves and not the product, which is confusingly,
> lazily and improperly referred to as "lego" or "Lego" rather than "Lego
> bricks".
I agree TLG or LG are useful to distinguish between company and product line
(or brand).
But what's so wrong about calling the product line/ brand name "LEGO" ?!
It's not just bricks.
In the Netherlands we say 'Do you have any LEGO at home?'. It isn't just
laziness that we wouldn't say 'Do you have any LEGO system of play bricks at
home?'. Compare 'do you have any Coca Cola in your fridge?' and 'do you have
any Coca Cola brand soft drink in you fridge?'
This may get us in the old 'legos' debate again... :-(
Follow-up set to lugnet.lingual.legos
Eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Acronym acrimony
|
| (...) I would prefer "LG" as the "L" is intuitive. I think the "T" is in there just so folks don't have to type "the", as it's designation in the acronym is so that people reading know that the subject in question is the corporation or group of (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jun-99, to lugnet.general)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
