|
|
 | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) I am so _not_ going to get in a cultural relativism argument over grammar and aesthetics. I'm a liberal in principle and a conservative in practice (except for anything from the seventies). (...) Yeah, it's not really a disagreement. I know (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
| (...) Thank you Matthew. And because I've had two hours sleep in about forty I'll just point out that 1. fast and red are in fact adjectives, hence the first example, and 2. Coke is a trademark and a proper noun (like LEGO) hence the second example. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Fair enough, but you must agree that because of that circular reasoning the argument won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it. (...) I understand and accept that, but many people identify LEGO as a singular noun in that usage, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads (was Re: Sticking it to Todd (was Re: Clones Database))
|
| (...) It's wrong, but not for that reason. It's wrong because it's an adjective, and adjectives don't really have plurals. But in popular usuage, it's a noun, and there's no reason for it to not have a regular plural. And people do say "I drank a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) (assuming it's an open question...) Could you ever have a total, _total_ competition vacuum? Because if there's a market, there's kids, and if there's kids there's no vacuum since they can always make up their own games. And if they couldn't (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) My take is that LEGO's trend toward Juniorization would continue with or without market competition, since we have evidence of its roots long before any serious competitor hit the market. LEGO can't blame (not that they do) their own reduced (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Absolutely, which why it's In My Humble Opinion. (...) I would argue (and again, this is entirely the way it works in my fat head)that you, as a LEGO user, would be as wrong (or right) to identify a single brick as "a Lego" as you would be if (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Are they the only thing keeping LEGO from complacency, or are they driving LEGO to juniorise the heck out of everything? If they didn't have to contend with competition, would they be dumbing down their sets, or would they be producing (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Parts one and three of this argument only hold true if you decide in advance that they're true. If, as a LEGO user, I identify a single brick as "a Lego," why is it grammatically incorrect to refer to several bricks as "Legos?" Forget about (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Where are the Dark Sharks
|
| Peter White wrote in message ... (...) HA!!! I wish some LUGNET members thought like that a bit more often, instead of whinging incessantly about the aesthetic limitations of a commercial product that has had a global corporation's worth of effort (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
|
