| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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).
> > > 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.)
Yeah, it's not really a disagreement. I know that some people see LEGO as a
singular noun. But to me it seems "wrong". And not just because TLC are
stinky IP obsessed whiners. More because it sounds like the kkind of
illiterate garble that some one who said "Laura and I really don't realize
how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis."
might say.
New topic.
If Americans voted for Dubya, do they deserve him?
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Huh? The argument is circular whether viewed from a cultural relativist standpoint or not. (...) I understand that you're working on very little sleep, but to proclaim someone's lexicon as "illiterate garble" just because it doesn't adhere to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
