 | | Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(URL), top story today. Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be "Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality doesn't (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Good point, but I think TLG said the same thing 24 years ago. (URL) <<-- notice bottom of ad. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Huh? "LEGO bricks" is the standard preferred term. And who does he think he is, going around and lecturing people on proper trademark protection when he's typing "Lego" instead of "LEGO"? Just because someone says that "LEGO" can't be (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
Robb King <rk@KILLTHISrobbking.com> wrote: [snip] (...) [snip] (...) Yes, that's the "Lego trademark page" referred to. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) I think you need to read the last paragraph again. :) As for the capitalization issue: that's a very long-standing conflict between marketing/sales/companies and journalists. See: (URL) Which includes the classic summary: "You want all caps? (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Yeah, but within that trademark blurb, the LEGO Group asks you to refer to their product as LEGO bricks or toys, in the plural. People can read that a couple of ways: from the "brand name protection" angle, or from the "settle this plural (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Does that mean we should henceforth say El You Gee Enn Ee Tee instead of LUGNET? Dave! (not purple, though my prose can be purple when it's red (well, "read"), and my language can be blue) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) :) If you want. But I usually write "Lugnet" or "LUGnet". (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what pains me more: the fact that this issue seems to come up again and again or the fact that we are now spotlighting 'news' articles from blogs. (...) Which is all well and good except for two things: 1) Many of us around here (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
Whoever wrote that totally rules. That little article makes so much sense that it hurts...but it's a good kinda hurt. (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
Somebody needs a nap. Mike (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) <sigh> I'm going to play with my legos. (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) It's not just any blog. (...) Sure, I'll *spell* it right. :) (...) Setting it back, because What-Ever. (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
<snip> (...) Enjoy playing with your mindstorms alternate software program.... (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) I think the correct way is "LUGNet" - because it refers to LEGO Users Group Network. And re: Kleenex and Band-Aids - I dont like those companies. I like TLG - and I try to do what TLG asks me to because I hope they do what I ask them to (good (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) True, but the title page shows LUGNET in all caps. Hmm... Admins, I demand transparency on this pressing issue--why so secretive all of a sudden? 8^) Dave! (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Then I will sincerely ask.... what kind of blog is it? (...) And then why not just use it the way the company has asked? I honestly don't see why people put up such a fuss over this. When speaking with friends, or just in your own head while (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) It's part of what remains of the former Brunching Shuttlecocks, which was one of the funniest humor sites on the web before its recent demise. Probably not coincidentally, today's Book of Ratings (another fragment of said site) also refers to (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) The problem with legos, as I see it, is there really isn't any other term for them besides "legos". Sure the company would like you to call them Lego bricks or Lego toys, and I try to do so in formal writing--only because I am a fan. But no (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
I want to know why I visit lugnet.com instead of lug.net. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
The word "Legos" really grates on me. It's not that lego is like sheep where the plural is also sheep, it's that lego is like sand: it doesn't have a plural. "Pass me those legos" is completely ambiguous: do you mean parts, sets, models, boxes or (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) When the subject/word comes up that is the best way I can describe it as well... the fact that it 'grates' on me. (...) Excellent analogy! And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone is saying the equivalent (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) ... (...) ... Ok... I *have* to jump in at this point. Since when does 'sand' NOT have a plural? It has been pluralized throughout the sands of time. Merriam-Webster, and every other reputable dictionary will back me up on this. Eric (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however incorrectly it might (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural form. Dave! (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or "Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or "Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span hardly let's get to the end of (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
I'm going to chalk this one up to human nature. As far as I can tell, people like to shorten names. Instead of saying "LEGO brand building bricks", they say "LEGOs". Call it a nick-name, or even an abbreviation .I could walk around all day saying (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the other (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Still, I've heard people say "I'd never buy a Ford" or "Fords suck" or that kind of thing, so at some level it is true that people can equate a brand with all subsets of the brand. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. (...) Eeek! Good (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) This is pretty much my position. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas. It doesn't really matter what words are used, as long as the idea behind them is understood. If using 'legos' or 'lego' communicates the idea as well as using (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) But "food" and "foods" are not interchangeable. "Foods" means different types of food. You can say "Some foods give me heartburn" meaning cheese and pastries, but not "Let me eat those foods" even if there's a whole buffet of different things (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) They can, but not for stuff like this. Ignoring the trademark-owner's wish on usage does not actually constitute a legal trademark violation. Improper usage, yes, but legal violations are only when one person is using and/or claiming as his (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Well, there are two things a play here... what people(1) *want* to do, and what companies *have* to do if they want to preserve their property. It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word "LEGO" as an adjective (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Yes, that's a very well-grounded opinion. :) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
