| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Dave Schuler 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.
Absolutely, which why it's In My Humble Opinion.
> 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?"
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 you called it "a blue". Maybe
there's a missing noun in there, so it's "a blue (brick)" vs "a yellow
(brick)", or "a Lego (brick)" vs "a Tente (brick)".
> 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."
Just to get all terribly anal, adjectives do not agree with the number
(singular /plural) of their corresponding nouns in English. I'd be quite
happy if someone came up with a counter example (I'm a tad brain fried at
the moment). And is LEGO an adjective or a collective noun or something so
wacky (like a gerund or something) that I just don't get it?
> 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.
Which really goes to my point about W. maybe being president!
[Just stirring the treacle]
> > 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.
Oh I'd probably be a bit upset: with all the free freemarket theory you can
pick up in o-t.d lurking, even a crypto-commie Lugnut (red spaceman anyone?)
would have to get that point. But I meant truly, truly heart-broken, like
one of their most precious memories had been ripped up and thrown away. I
find it really easy to believe that if Lego went bust (heaven forbid) at
least 30,40% of Lugnet regulars would torn to pieces for anywhere from a few
days to a few decades. But if Ritvik went bust most people would be a bit
sad, and also a bit happy. And I'd be shocked if anyone really fell to
pieces because they couldn't ever get any <treacley> MegaBloks ever again
(but then I'm a puritan).
--Dave;
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
