Subject:
|
Re: Trademarks and misspellings.... oh my! (WAS:Re: Where did the lego's go?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:22:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1768 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Leonard Hoffman writes:
>
> > Like 'LEGO'? ;)
> >
> > Is it misspelled or just invented? Either way, it's not a word that's
> > likely to be recognized by many scholars as being spelled correctly.
>
> DUDE! Do your lego research! 'LEGO' was originally derived by Ole Kirk
> Christianson as a contraction of the Danish phrase 'leg godt,' meaning,
> "play well." However, 'lego' is also latin for 'to put together.'
All true. And good to point out.
I guess my point was to illustrate that the LEGO company name is one of
those words you won't find in a standard English dictionary... for the
reason that it's an obscure or otherwise unique word that could be
trademarked as a company name.
My point on the word still stands though. No matter how you look at it,
it's not a "real" word. In Danish it's a contraction of two real words. In
Latin it's.... well, who uses Latin anymore anyway. ;)
So the fact that it's not a word or name in common usage in the language
makes it really no different than the name "Mega Bloks", in that it's able
to be trademarked as a company name.
> <snip>
> > That's why the LEGO company isn't called 'The Plastic Brick' company. :)
>
> Actually, lego was originally a wooden toy company in Denmark. Somewhere
> along the way someone bought a plastic injection machine and they haven't
> been the same since...
And they were the first company in Denmark to have such a machine. See...
my LEGO history isn't that bad after all. :)
> and somehow i think you've missed the humorous/ironic undertones to the
> thread. ;o)
Guess I must have. Since there wern't any smilies in the two messages by
the two Daves (to which I was replying) I took it to mean that the
conversation was meant to be taken at face value. My reply, on the other
hand, contained 4 smilies... to indicates it was not meant to be taken too
seriously. :)
As well, I directed follow-ups to my reply to off-topic.fun. To further
drive home the point that I wasn't trying to be heavy-handed or "serious" in
my reply. So maybe some of my humorous undertones were overlooked as well. :)
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
34 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
|
|
|
|
