Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Dullard]

This is one of those instances where I just have to at the stupidity of the situation.

Fact 1: LEGO wants people to not use 'LEGOs' because they have some kind of brick up their butt. Probably the rich people who own the company have too much time on their hands so they had to think up something related to plastic bricks that they could become offended about.
Fact 2: Aside from the brick-up-the-butt executives and a few lawyers, nobody cares. Especially the thousands of ten-year-olds who will continue to refer to the product as 'LEGOs' indefinitely.
Fact 3: LOL.

[G-Flex]

Lord Dullard is right, more-or-less, but the fact is that most companies act that way about brand names. Companies generally don't like brand names to become the genericized word for a type of product.

That being said, anybody who actually thinks that saying "LEGOs" is some kind of incorrect grammar is being very bad at grammar nazism. People use brand names as nouns all the time.

[betamax]

Lord Dullard is right, more-or-less, but the fact is that most companies act that way about brand names. Companies generally don't like brand names to become the genericized word for a type of product.

That being said, anybody who actually thinks that saying "LEGOs" is some kind of incorrect grammar is being very bad at grammar nazism. People use brand names as nouns all the time.

It's not using it as a noun that's so wrong, but using it as a countable noun.

HEY LETS MAKE CASTLES OUT OF SANDS, THEN GO AND JUMP IN THE MUDS, THEN WE'LL EAT SANDWICHES MADE OF BREADS AND CHEESES AND HAMS, BREATHING OXYGENS AND OTHER GASES IN THE AIRS ALL THE TIME.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

why is LEGO nount contable? you can count the bricks in it ... in this case even cars shouldn't be used none know how many cars existe but you can know how many you have ... same with LEGO
i make a house with 14 LEGOs is it wrong, would it be better: i make a house with 14 LEGO?

[Sean Mirrsen]

The most anally perfect form would be "I make a house with 14 LEGO pieces.". But "I make a house with 14 LEGOs" is just as valid as "You're about to do what? You can't do that!" against "You are about to do what? You can not do that!".

[Tormy]

If only every advert.bot had an AI as sophisticated as yours...

Thank you.

Huh??
Why should adbots advertise FREE/donationware utilites? 

[sjmarshy]

The most anally perfect form would be "I make a house with 14 LEGO pieces.". But "I make a house with 14 LEGOs" is just as valid as "You're about to do what? You can't do that!" against "You are about to do what? You can not do that!".

Not true, It would be like, as previously stated, saying lets make a castle out of some sands.
there are different types of nouns, and as it happens, LEGO is not a countable noun. There isn't a degree of incorrectness about it, its quite alright to shorten cannot to can't, but it's against the rules of grammar to use LEGO as a countable noun, i.e. LEGOs. Also, because it is a brand name, you do not get free reign with how you use it. If anything, there are more stringent controls over how it should be used, those as supplied by English standard grammar and those as supplied by the company which owns the brand name. It's not a matter of whether its silly saying its wrong or not, it just is wrong, that's the point.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

The most anally perfect form would be "I make a house with 14 LEGO pieces.". But "I make a house with 14 LEGOs" is just as valid as "You're about to do what? You can't do that!" against "You are about to do what? You can not do that!".

Not true, It would be like, as previously stated, saying lets make a castle out of some sands.
there are different types of nouns, and as it happens, LEGO is not a countable noun. There isn't a degree of incorrectness about it, its quite alright to shorten cannot to can't, but it's against the rules of grammar to use LEGO as a countable noun, i.e. LEGOs. Also, because it is a brand name, you do not get free reign with how you use it. If anything, there are more stringent controls over how it should be used, those as supplied by English standard grammar and those as supplied by the company which owns the brand name. It's not a matter of whether its silly saying its wrong or not, it just is wrong, that's the point.

I am happy that i don't let other people to say me what is wrong and what is a good use for a word grammer is a usless part of society

[sjmarshy]

In my experience, grammar is imperative to communication between two people, as it is far easier to understand someone using correct grammar. Communication is a very important part of society indeed, and society would not exist without communication. For me, at least, grammar is one of the most important things in society, and not useless at all. Structure is far more useful than chaos.

[ricree]

Therefore every time you say ‘legos’ you’re hurting the brand, and god kills a kitten.

Well he'd better hurry up before they've all claimed owners and can't be butchered anymore.

[Lord Dullard]

The most anally perfect form would be "I make a house with 14 LEGO pieces.". But "I make a house with 14 LEGOs" is just as valid as "You're about to do what? You can't do that!" against "You are about to do what? You can not do that!".

Not true, It would be like, as previously stated, saying lets make a castle out of some sands.
there are different types of nouns, and as it happens, LEGO is not a countable noun. There isn't a degree of incorrectness about it, its quite alright to shorten cannot to can't, but it's against the rules of grammar to use LEGO as a countable noun, i.e. LEGOs. Also, because it is a brand name, you do not get free reign with how you use it. If anything, there are more stringent controls over how it should be used, those as supplied by English standard grammar and those as supplied by the company which owns the brand name. It's not a matter of whether its silly saying its wrong or not, it just is wrong, that's the point.

Oh my god, we can't say it? SOMEBODY TELL ALL THE TEN YEAR OLDS!

The fact is, language is not permanent. We have very little control over how language actually forms and changes. The rules need to adjust themselves to the usage, not vice versa. People have been calling handkerchiefs 'kleenexes' for decades. How many people do you hear asking for 'handkerchiefs' nowadays as opposed to people asking for kleenexes?

Aside from that, your assertation that 'you do not get free reign with how you use it' is utter and complete bullshit. Sure, if I try to release a product named 'LEGO' I'll run into trouble because the name is trademarked. That doesn't stop me, legally or otherwise, from using the word LEGO in any way that I damn well please as long as I don't claim to 'own' the word. LEGO LEGO LEGO LEGO LEGO. LEGOS. LEGOS LEGOS.

Better call the police, apparently I've just violated the law. 

[stummel]

I never said "LEGOs"...

Maybe, it's because I'm from Germany?
Everyone has got problems with people pronouncing words other then oneself or even worse creating new words. Just human. Nothing to judge.

[sjmarshy]

The most anally perfect form would be "I make a house with 14 LEGO pieces.". But "I make a house with 14 LEGOs" is just as valid as "You're about to do what? You can't do that!" against "You are about to do what? You can not do that!".

Not true, It would be like, as previously stated, saying lets make a castle out of some sands.
there are different types of nouns, and as it happens, LEGO is not a countable noun. There isn't a degree of incorrectness about it, its quite alright to shorten cannot to can't, but it's against the rules of grammar to use LEGO as a countable noun, i.e. LEGOs. Also, because it is a brand name, you do not get free reign with how you use it. If anything, there are more stringent controls over how it should be used, those as supplied by English standard grammar and those as supplied by the company which owns the brand name. It's not a matter of whether its silly saying its wrong or not, it just is wrong, that's the point.

Oh my god, we can't say it? SOMEBODY TELL ALL THE TEN YEAR OLDS!

The fact is, language is not permanent. We have very little control over how language actually forms and changes. The rules need to adjust themselves to the usage, not vice versa. People have been calling handkerchiefs 'kleenexes' for decades. How many people do you hear asking for 'handkerchiefs' nowadays as opposed to people asking for kleenexes?

Aside from that, your assertation that 'you do not get free reign with how you use it' is utter and complete bullshit. Sure, if I try to release a product named 'LEGO' I'll run into trouble because the name is trademarked. That doesn't stop me, legally or otherwise, from using the word LEGO in any way that I damn well please as long as I don't claim to 'own' the word. LEGO LEGO LEGO LEGO LEGO. LEGOS. LEGOS LEGOS.

Better call the police, apparently I've just violated the law. 

Personally, I don't care how you use a word, or don't use it. I was saying that technically, it was an incorrect usage. You say LEGOs if it makes you feel happy, but according to grammar, which does indeed change but not upon whim, it's merely incorrect. I'm saying there is no question about that. As to your example, I've never said Kleenex instead of handkerchief or tissue, but maybe that's because I'm English and don't see Kleenex around as much as I might.
As I say, for me this isn't a question about how people use the word, I couldn't care less quite honestly, it's just people saying they can say it how they like and it will be correct. they're right partially, say it how you like. That, however, does not make you correct.

It are possible me for talk grammar without.  However, it generally helps if I stick to using grammar as it should be used, no matter how flexible you perceive it to be. Oh, and I'm not ten

[dreiche2]

Not true, It would be like, as previously stated, saying lets make a castle out of some sands.

Well, the comparison is not really convincing because "sand" is not a brand name.

So, where does "grammar" say how you have to handle brand names?

[sjmarshy]

sand isn't a brand name, no, but LEGO is not a countable noun. I was just saying that the fact its a brand name doesn't really mean we can throw it around how we like, but that's not really why 'LEGOs' shouldn't be used, though the LEGO people themselves say it shouldn't be used. The only point I'm trying to make is that it is wrong. I'm not saying don't use it or anything, just that its silly saying that it's right, because it isn't.

EDIT: we weren't the first to have this argument http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/06/patching-ancient-wal.html