Subject:
|
Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:04:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1976 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Barney Hilken wrote:
> The word "Legos" really grates on me.
When the subject/word comes up that is the best way I can describe it as well...
the fact that it '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.
Excellent analogy!
And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
> "Pass me those legos" is completely ambiguous: do you mean parts, sets, models,
> boxes or what? The natural measure of lego is the "heap" (because however
> carefully you sort it, it still ends up in a heap when you build) so the natural
> thing to say is "Pass me that lego" if you want the lot, or "Pass me that
> bit/brick/gear/2x4 plate" if you want a particular piece. There is no such thing
> as "one lego".
For whatever reason I would tend to say 'pile' of LEGO but I think the intent is
the same. And for those looking to use the word in a plural sense your
paragraph speaks volumes. You could look at a sculpture and say, "look at what
you can do with just LEGO bricks!" Or, you might look at a set on the shelf of
a store and say, "wow, I can't wait to get home and build with all these LEGO
bricks, plates and wheels." You're right, there is no such thing as "one LEGO".
> I know this is a personal view, and many people (especially in the US) disagree,
It is personal, but is also what the company has set out for usage guidelines.
I would suggest that unless you have some overwhelming reason to not follow
these rules (such as your editor has threatened to fire you from your job on the
newspaper) then why not just use them as asked? It's not that tough.
And for what it's worth Barney, you are not alone. There are many who agree
with you.
> but no-one in this thread had said it, so I felt I had to. If it means that I
> hear or read "legos" once less often it will have achieved something.
Well said. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
35 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
|
|
|
|
