| |
In lugnet.loc.au, David Low writes:
> > 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.
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.
>
> > 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)".
I understand and accept that, but many people identify LEGO as a singular
noun in that usage, but might also refer to "a LEGO set," thereby using it
as an adjective.
> Just to get all terribly anal, adjectives do not agree with the number
> (singular /plural) of their corresponding nouns in English.
You're absolutely correct. However, if "LEGO" is taken as a noun rather
than an adjective corresponding to a noun, there's plenty of precedent for
pluralization by "s." I know what you're driving at, but I don't think your
interpretation accounts for the various ways the word LEGO is perceived.
> 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?
That's the essence of our disagreement. If, as you suggest, LEGO is only
an adjective, then you're correct in asserting "LEGO bricks" as the correct
usage. Likewise, if it's a collective noun, a la "fleet" or "family," then
"I am building with LEGO" is also correct. However, if, as I suggest, some
people see LEGO as a singular noun, then "I am building with LEGOs" is
correct (grammatically--not in terms of trademark.)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
