9 ms·
"Lego", not "Legos", please. Sigh.
by gjvc 6y ago
"Lego", not "Legos", please.
Sigh.
- lostlogin 6y agoLego have confirmed this. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/what-is-the-correct-plural-form-of-lego-lego-or-legos https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/what-is-th... https://mobile.twitter.com/lego_group/status/842115345280294912?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/lego_group/status/842115345280294...
- EamonnMR 6y agoFrom the chosen answer: > Of course everyone is free to comply with these corporate demands, but the Lego Group has no authority over the English language to regulate it in this way. So if you want to feel guilty about using “Legos”, understand that the only thing you are guilty of is not obeying the demands of a Danish corporation, not for violating the rules of English grammar.
- OJFord 6y ago*American English grammar. It's firmly 'Lego' in the UK.
- Svip 6y agoConsidering there is English grammar authority either, I guess you can never be violating English grammar rules? You are merely in conflict with some of the English dictionaries out there. So even if the scale is different, it's sort of the same.
- OJFord 6y agoYes, and I find this argument quite tiresome (mainly due to its frequency) on English.SE - Google ngrams are really interesting, but it's not all I'm interested in. If something's a modern 'corruption' (by whoever considers it such) then all an ngram's going to show you is yes (or no) it has (resp. not) been corrupted. Imagine if English (Language) teachers took the same stance. A+ everyone, if that's how you say it, you're correct, there is no wrong. (And then is ESL different? Seems like racism is the effective conclusion!)
- OJFord 6y ago[Given the nature of this thread, I'm sorry, but I have to do this ;)] > Lego have [...] [the company] *has.
- chrisseaton 6y agoIt's a plural - groups of people are traditionally plural in English. Apple have announced a new iPhone. The New York Yankees are playing tonight. The Board were due to meet yesterday. Etc.
- OJFord 6y agoIt's (it! You said it yourself!) not a plural, it's a singular company. It's perhaps clearer if you add a description of the company: > Apple, an American company, has announced a new iPhone.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> it! You said it yourself! 'It' refers to the word there. The thing the word refers to is a plural. > It's not a plural, it's a singular company. That's just not traditional in English. What is a company except a group of people? That's what the word 'company' literally means. Most people in English speaking countries outside US influence would say: > Apple, an American company, have announced a new iPhone.
- OJFord 6y agoI strongly disagree, as does the aforementioned style guide, as does Google Ngram Viewer (BrE even): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=company+have%2Ccompany+has&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=company+have%2... What about 'only one of the companies [...]', what'll you say next? A singular company is formed of a plurality of parts, yes, just as a millipede has many legs.
- 6y ago
- JZumun 6y agoThis reminds me of how Adobe Photoshop branding guidelines [1] explicitly forbid the use of "photoshop" as a verb or common noun, and yet I don't think anyone considers these to be improper English grammar. 1: https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html
- sneak 6y agoI don't capitalize mac and I regularly use definite and indefinite articles to describe the iPhone. Sometimes I even call them MacBook Pros.
- toast0 6y ago> MacBook Pros. MacsBook Pro.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI snorted
- ziml77 6y agoI prefer seeing fully lowercase mac over MAC
- hnlmorg 6y agoMAC is something entirely different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
- dylan604 6y agonaturally, mac isn't an acronym, it's just shortened. I would have to ask the GP if they write steve in place of Stephen or cat in place of Catherine. A name is a name; use a cap.
- sneak 6y agoMy nick (sneak) is a proper noun and is never capitalized.
- jjeaff 6y agoI don't think corporate marketing departments get to demand changes to the English language. It seems like the much more common usage in the wild is legos, regardless of what corporate and pedants want people to use.
- chrisseaton 6y agoBut isn't it more kind to respect the wishes of the people who created and named it in the first place? Yes you've got every right to continue to be ignorant after it's been explained to you... but I mean why aspire to do that?
- hrktb 6y agoI'd be with you if there was any kind of consensus on this. For instance GIF's creator clarifying the pronounciation of his file format was mostly met with a mild middle finger. Is the Lego company meriting more bending backwards than him ?
- matja 6y ago> NEVER add a possessive “s”, plural “s” or hyphen, e.g. LEGO’s design, more LEGOs to play with, LEGO-bricks. reference: https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/legal/assets/blt1a4c9a959ce8e1cb/FairPlayBrochure.pdf https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/legal/assets/blt1a4c9a959ce8e1cb...
- crooked-v 6y agoIt's basically the same treatment that any company wants: "Kleenex tissues", "Google searches", "Band-Aid bandages", "LEGO bricks", etc. This is for trademark reasons, because not vigorously defending the 'proper' use of the term can lead it to becoming genericized and usable by anyone. For an example of this happening in practice, "aspirin" was originally a Bayer trademark that was lost through genericization.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoOkay but why should we afford that consideration to any company at all? They’re supposed to provide something of value. They’re not human beings with corporeal needs. Bayer seems to be doing just fine.
- 15charlimitdumb 6y agoThe largest lego market,(states) refers to them as legos. See amazon, NPR, ect https://www.google.com/search?q=%22legos%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22legos%22
- eyelidlessness 6y agoSince this is a post about both a Lego thing and an Apple thing (both of which make products I’m fond of), is this like when Apple insists on omitting articles (“iPod” vs “an iPod” etc) when referencing their products? I’ve always understood Lego to be the brand but also the common reference to Lego bricks, never even knew there was a distinction until today. Like another person downthread, I’ve only ever heard “Legos” used for the plural.
- OJFord 6y agoIt's just an (North?) American thing - in the UK/Europe Lego is the proper noun company name, and adjectivally describes the brick or bricks. Nobody says 'a lego' or 'some legos'; but similarly in the US I imagine you'd get a funny look (you'd never heard it before, after all) for saying 'a Lego brick' or 'some Lego bricks'. (Actually, for anyone actually using Lego(s?), surely the real answer is that you speak in terms of their dimensions: 'a 2x4'; 'some 1x1s'..?!)
- eyelidlessness 6y agoOkay? There are a lot of American things I’d like to change. This falls far below my desire to say “maths” and much further below things that are actually impacting people’s lives.
- OJFord 6y agoOkay? I was only replying to your own comment on the issue; I'm not forcing you to think about it!