6 ms·
I 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, rega
by jjeaff 6y ago
I 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.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> Okay but why should we afford that consideration to any company at all? Why not afford it to them? If someone asks you nicely to do something because it's important to them and it costs you nothing why not do it?
- eyelidlessness 6y agoThey’re not someone. Asking humans to change their behavior because a brand asks to be represented in an unusual way is asking for free marketing.
- hu3 6y agoThis reply is disproportionately mean. Please don't call people ignorant because they disagree with your opinion.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI’m disappointed you’re being downvoted for asking people to be nice to humans. I’ve probably ruffled a few feathers challenging deference to corporations’ wishes too, but you were explicitly asking people not to be mean to other people and that doesn’t deserve to be penalized here or anywhere.
- hu3 6y agoI appreciate that you also see that calling others ignorant during a civilized debate is uncalled for. Not to mention that it does not align with HN guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." and "Please don't post shallow dismissals." I expected better etiquette from someone who is said to have been an English teacher.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAs I said upthread, this reminded me of Apple’s preference to refer to its products without an article (it’s “iPod”, not “the iPod”). I like Apple products, but I don’t like anthropomorphizing their brands. I sincerely don’t think the actual humans making these products we like care about people using the language constructs they’re familiar with. And I sincerely don’t think branding should have so much power as to invent new language constructs and expect people to adopt them or be considered ignorant.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> as to invent new language constructs It's not a new language construct - they're just saying it's an adjective.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAdjectives that are branding but aren’t adjectives in any languages I speak are... branding. I don’t owe them any obligation to change that.
- Marazan 6y agoOnly in America. The UK uses lego as the plural for lego.
- hanoz 6y agoI've never heard anyone say Legos, it sounds nonsensical to my ear. Lego is the system. You've got Lego men, Lego wheels and Lego bricks. If you're referring to a Lego brick as 'a Lego', then fair enough. But who does that?
- hnlmorg 6y agoExactly this. Lego is the construction brand. The individual pieces are bricks et al.
- fnord123 6y agoLegos refers to the lego bricks like waters can refer to multiple glasses of water even though water is a mass noun and usually doesn't exist in plural. Same with peoples meaning multiple groups of people.
- sturadnidge 6y agoSheep is perhaps a better example for comparison with Lego. Unless you know of an example where ‘sheeps’ has legitimate usage.
- em-bee 6y agonot really, because sheep IS already plural. there is no singular for sheep. if there was it would have to be shoop. (feet->foot, teeth->tooth, etc...)
- ncallaway 6y agoEvery person I've ever interacted with has said "do you want to play legos?" or some variant of it. I've never once been asked "do you want to play with Lego bricks?" So, in answer to your "who does that?" question my anecdotal response would be "everyone" Language probably just varies a lot from place to place
- hnlmorg 6y ago
- Fricken 6y agoIf you sheeps keep pluralizing it as "Legos" you might find yourselves sleeping with the fishes.
- em-bee 6y agosheep is already plural, you shoop ;-)