| |
In lugnet.loc.au, David Low writes:
> "Legos" (meaning any generic plastic brick) is all of the following (AFAIK
> and IMHO):
> 2. A usage that is wrong on the grounds of grammar, law and aesthetics.
> Do you say "I like fasts reds cars"? or "I like to drink Cokes"? (this one
> might be okay if you're a severe caffeine addict)
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 trademark issues for a moment; you simply can't argue
that pluralization by the addition of an "s" is uniformly grammatically
unsound. To turn your example around, would you say "There are two red car
parked in the driveway" or "I drank two Coke last night"? The usage of
"Legos" describes the bricks in terms of discrete units, each called "a lego."
As far as aesthetics is concerned, your assessment is entirely a value
judgement. "Legos" has been part of my lexicon for about 25 years, and,
while I recognize the danger of trademark dilution and therefore say LEGO
instead of Legos, I don't cringe when I hear people use the manufactured
pluralized form.
> 3. Only part of what Lugnet is about.
This is certainly true. Todd's offer to post a link to an off-site clones
page is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the clone-using community
at LUGNET.
> I wonder how many clone fans would be truly heart-broken if Ritvik went bust?
I would be greatly upset, and I think (though I can't speak for him) that
Richard would likewise be upset. And you should be, too; Ritvik is LEGO's
primary competitor and as such provides the only protection against LEGO's
complacency. Whether or not you like clones, many people do like them, and
LEGO knows it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
