5 ms·

I'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

by hanoz 6y ago

I'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 ago
Exactly this. Lego is the construction brand. The individual pieces are bricks et al.
- fnord123 6y ago
  Legos 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 ago
    Sheep is perhaps a better example for comparison with Lego. Unless you know of an example where ‘sheeps’ has legitimate usage.
    - em-bee 6y ago
      not 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 ago
Every 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
  You're missing the point of the GP. If Lego is the name of the game then you're not going to say "Do you want to play with Lego bricks?" because you're taking the individual component of the game and then pluralising it rather than taking the game as a whole. Take Snooker for example. The game components consists of a table and balls, but you don't say "Do you want to play balls?" You say "Do you want to play Snooker?". Same with Lego. The game is called "Lego" but the parts are called "Lego bricks". People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate. Likewise people in Yorkshire, England, say "our dad" instead of "my dad" but that doesn't mean they're literally more than one person. In short, it's quite possible for lots of people to be wrong ;)
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > You're missing the point of the GP I don't think I missed the point. They asked: "who does that?" And my answer was, essentially, "some people!" In fact, around me, it's everyone I've ever talked with legos about. > People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate. I think it is technically accurate, because I'm a descriptivist. So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      > So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used. You're conflating different things there: - Colloquially correct - Formally correct English, like most languages, does have formal rules. You claim there is no "formal rule for what English is" but that's 100% incorrect. Yes you're right that common usage does alter languages but not in the way you imply. Colloquial usage doesn't alter formal rules. "Legos" might be colloquial but it is not formally correct. A good equivalent here is jigsaw puzzles. You don't call multiple games "jigsaw pieces" like you implied the Lego game might be called "Lego bricks". Colloquially some people call them "jigsaws" but formally they're called "jigsaw puzzles". Just because there is a colloquial convention it doesn't it's correct. There are countless examples of colloquial "rules" that are grammatically or formally incorrect. Even just within the UK and USA we have different communities that have their own colloquial standards. Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents.

by hanoz 6y ago

hnlmorg 6y ago

Exactly this. Lego is the construction brand. The individual pieces are bricks et al.

fnord123 6y ago
Legos 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 ago
  Sheep is perhaps a better example for comparison with Lego. Unless you know of an example where ‘sheeps’ has legitimate usage.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    not 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 ago

Every 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
You're missing the point of the GP. If Lego is the name of the game then you're not going to say "Do you want to play with Lego bricks?" because you're taking the individual component of the game and then pluralising it rather than taking the game as a whole. Take Snooker for example. The game components consists of a table and balls, but you don't say "Do you want to play balls?" You say "Do you want to play Snooker?". Same with Lego. The game is called "Lego" but the parts are called "Lego bricks". People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate. Likewise people in Yorkshire, England, say "our dad" instead of "my dad" but that doesn't mean they're literally more than one person. In short, it's quite possible for lots of people to be wrong ;)
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > You're missing the point of the GP I don't think I missed the point. They asked: "who does that?" And my answer was, essentially, "some people!" In fact, around me, it's everyone I've ever talked with legos about. > People might informally call it "Legos" in America but that doesn't mean it's technically accurate. I think it is technically accurate, because I'm a descriptivist. So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    > So, when people in America (or other place) say: "legos" to describe they toys they're playing with that is technically accurate. Because language is how people use it. There is no "formal rule" for what english is. English is however it is used. You're conflating different things there: - Colloquially correct - Formally correct English, like most languages, does have formal rules. You claim there is no "formal rule for what English is" but that's 100% incorrect. Yes you're right that common usage does alter languages but not in the way you imply. Colloquial usage doesn't alter formal rules. "Legos" might be colloquial but it is not formally correct. A good equivalent here is jigsaw puzzles. You don't call multiple games "jigsaw pieces" like you implied the Lego game might be called "Lego bricks". Colloquially some people call them "jigsaws" but formally they're called "jigsaw puzzles". Just because there is a colloquial convention it doesn't it's correct. There are countless examples of colloquial "rules" that are grammatically or formally incorrect. Even just within the UK and USA we have different communities that have their own colloquial standards. Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents.