Print

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

[Tormy]

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.

Well, the problem is that perfect english grammar is very rare amongst the non-native english speakers you know. 

[Sean Mirrsen]

LEGO as a brand name is not a countable noun. Indeed, LEGOs would imply "Many LEGO companies". However, as with certain other words, a "brand name" can at the same time have other meanings. There's a chinese car company called "Great Wall". When you talk about the cars they make, you will inevitably say "Great Walls" - and that word has a meaning outside of "brand name". The brand name, no matter how unfitting, can have a different meaning. In case of LEGOs, the customers of the company have defined, not "the LEGO", the company, but "a LEGO", a constructor block the company makes. "LEGOs", in this specific sense, is not a grammar error in any shape or form.

(and the "brand name as plural" example extends beyond cars. Walking into a bar, you can say "two bottles of beer", or "two bottles of Heineken", or indeed "two Heinekens", if the bar only sells beer in bottles - in this case, a frequently used word construction becomes accepted as correct)

[Mohreb el Yasim]

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.

i agree with you if it is a metter of understanding something (and i am said that sometimes i can't axplain myself clarly enougth to make me understud, BUT if a "bad grammair" won't hurt for understanding i think it is not usefull to applay regles. Acouse people how tougth like you haven't french grammair evolved since 200 years. and even natives begin to have trubels to write in french ... and that is eventualy a bad thing i think, becouse it makes writing a luxury, and as such something wich just some few can acomplish...

[sjmarshy]

I can see everyone's points here, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick to my guns. It seems like it isn't being realised that I don't actually care if people do use 'LEGOs' or not. I'm just saying, by all accounts, that its wrong that saying 'LEGOs' is bad grammar. Continue to have bad grammar purposefully, I really don't mind, that wasn't the point being argued. I display bad grammar plenty of times, and often have difficulty spelling, but I'd never say that a word I know I spelled wrong was the correct spelling.

 haha also I'm wandering why dreiche2 put grammar in quotation marks, as in 'this so called grammar thing'. Just noticed.

[dreiche2]

well I guess the discussion is about being "right"  anyway

I put it into quotation marks because I wondered where I can read about that absolute law of grammar that you are apparently talking about when it comes to brand names... or more exactly:

I'm with Sean Mirrsen on this one. Basically, what happens here is that in common language, people used LEGOs as a word for the bricks produced by the LEGO company. Basically, in that sense it became a *new* word (or a new usage for an old world). And new words are created all the time by how people use them, and not according to some council that decides about them (well, or not only that way).

So either you show why creating new words is "grammatically wrong", or why creating new words derived from brand names is "grammatically wrong", or why creating words that are derived from brand names and have a plural is "grammatically wrong".

Well, this times it's in quotes because I don't think "grammatically wrong" applies to the creation of new words anyway...

[sjmarshy]

well, a word is technically slang, not a true word, until it enters the dictionary. I think the dictionary usually taken as standard is the Oxford English Dictionary.
However, as this is a brand name, it won't be in the dictionary anyway, but changing a word from, in this case, LEGO to LEGOs is not making a new word, it is pluralising a word that should not be pluralised.

[dreiche2]

So the guy who wrote the first dictionary, where did he get the words from?

As for brand names not entering dictionaries...

The verb to google (also spelled to Google) refers to using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance[1] of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002." [2] It was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006,[3] and to the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006.[4]

... according to wikipedia

[Jay]

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.

grammer is a usless part of society

Being able to know what the hell you're saying is useless?  God help us all.

[Doppel]

I love what you can find on the Googles. 

Meh, i say legos too, reason is that to me it refers to a patented brick, called a lego (not a lego brick, that would be a certain brick brick), thus having more of those certain bricks means having more legos.
Logical if you ask me.

[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.

grammer is a usless part of society

Being able to know what the hell you're saying is useless?  God help us all.

i explained a little bit more my opignon later ... i think it shouldn't be an academy how decide actualy what is wrong and what is rigth. if most of the people use, and understand a word or a word-form (like LEGOs) it does exist. There should be just some people how notice it and put it in the dictionary. but i dont like the aproch of "no that is bad gramma' so it is wrong ...", i am more like "what a great new word, i haven't tougth about that befor, i would use it too..."

[sjmarshy]

So the guy who wrote the first dictionary, where did he get the words from?

As for brand names not entering dictionaries...

The verb to google (also spelled to Google) refers to using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance[1] of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002." [2] It was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006,[3] and to the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006.[4]

... according to wikipedia

First of all, I don't tend to trust everything I do to wikipedia, it can sometimes be unreliable.
However, in this case, this is not a brand name being entered into the dictionary, this is a brand name becoming slang, becoming a real word and entering the dictionary, what I described in fact.
The man who first wrote the dictionary died before it was finished. I can't remember the exact times but I think it took over 10 years, and it defined the English language for the first time ever, completely, with every word that was used throughout the country. People still had words and spoke before the first dictionary, he did not sit down and make up a list of words. Grammar existed before the dictionary, obviously, as well as the words, he merely set out to document and describe each one of them.

[RickiusMaximus]

I'm off to count my sheeps and build a castle out of sands

[Sean Mirrsen]

"sheeps" is a grammatical error, since the word has a defined plural. "Sands" is correct, for example, "A mighty pyramid is built amid the sands of the desert".

[Steel_Golem]

Grammar Nazi? Here? No!

[dreiche2]

First of all, I don't tend to trust everything I do to wikipedia, it can sometimes be unreliable.

Well but it's better than having no reference whatsoever... Also, do you really think that the wikipedia entry is wrong here about "to google" being in a dictionary? If not, then your statement is a red herring.

However, in this case, this is not a brand name being entered into the dictionary, this is a brand name becoming slang, becoming a real word and entering the dictionary, what I described in fact.

I disagree about your definition of slang (but no I'm not going to quote wikipedia again, especially as in such a case it's more vague indeed), but okay, let's assume everything that's not in a dictionary is slang. You still haven't replied to my point why making a new (slang) word from a brand name should be "incorrect", grammatically or otherwise. Again, if you accept that LEGOs in this usage is a new word (because it does exactly *not* refer to the company, but to the bricks), slang or otherwise, why should it be incorrect? "To google"  sounds pretty awkward, too, but hey that's the way people use it, and now it's an "official" word.

The man who first wrote the dictionary died before it was finished. I can't remember the exact times but I think it took over 10 years, and it defined the English language for the first time ever, completely, with every word that was used throughout the country. People still had words and spoke before the first dictionary, he did not sit down and make up a list of words. Grammar existed before the dictionary, obviously, as well as the words, he merely set out to document and describe each one of them.

So following your argument, all language before the first dictionary was slang? And what about that grammar that existed before the first dictionary, who said what is right or wrong?

Really, right or wrong is usually understood in terms of how people commonly use language, and apparently, dictionaries follow exactly that reasoning when introducing words like "to google" or spam email or whatever.

So, your definition would be everything that uses words that are not in the dictionary (yet) is grammatically wrong? Or would you say that LEGOs is not a word at all, slang or otherwise? Despite of the fact that people use it?

Edit: You know what, I think the problem would be solved, from your point of view, by refraining from calling things "incorrect" when talking about mild slang...?

Edit2: you know what, where's the guy who started this whole discussion anyway. I'd say we find a compromise by throwing him into a lava pit.