3 ms·

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 br

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.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents. Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? There is, in fact, no formal English standard that defines what is "correct". I'm not conflating "colloquially correct" with "formally correct". I am fundamentally disagreeing with you that a concept such as "formally correct" exists for language. I am a descriptivist. You sound like you are a prescriptivist. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
      - hnlmorg 6y ago
        > Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? It's not a technical language like C so you're not going to find a technical standard in ANSI but organisations like Websters (and Oxford in the UK) do define standards for formal writing. I guess the confusion here is it's not a "formal standard" but a "standard in formal writing". I apologise for not being clearer on that. Generally the formal version of the language is considered "correct" while variations are "slang". You might argue that is only a de facto standard but it's still one that is upheld. Some languages go further and do literally have a formal body in charge of maintaining their language, such as Académie Française who dictate the evolution of French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise > You sound like you are a prescriptivist I'm really not. I frequently colour my speech with non-literal imagery and slang. But I also acknowledge that there are still underlying rules to any language. And if I seem like a prescriptivist it's only because I'm dyslexic so have to work harder than most to make my thoughts understandable -- so much so that a frequent phrase I used as a teen was "if the point of languages is to be understood then who gives a shit if I'm grammatically correct when you clearly understood me?" Suffice to say, human languages aren't something that comes naturally to me. Thus I might be more acutely aware of the rules where you might take them for granted.
        6y ago

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.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > Yet there is a national standard for how one writes formal documents. Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? There is, in fact, no formal English standard that defines what is "correct". I'm not conflating "colloquially correct" with "formally correct". I am fundamentally disagreeing with you that a concept such as "formally correct" exists for language. I am a descriptivist. You sound like you are a prescriptivist. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      > Citation needed, please. Could you link me to the formally defined national grammar for American English, please? Who is the body that maintains this formal standard? Is it NIST, or ANSI, or an ISO standard? It's not a technical language like C so you're not going to find a technical standard in ANSI but organisations like Websters (and Oxford in the UK) do define standards for formal writing. I guess the confusion here is it's not a "formal standard" but a "standard in formal writing". I apologise for not being clearer on that. Generally the formal version of the language is considered "correct" while variations are "slang". You might argue that is only a de facto standard but it's still one that is upheld. Some languages go further and do literally have a formal body in charge of maintaining their language, such as Académie Française who dictate the evolution of French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise > You sound like you are a prescriptivist I'm really not. I frequently colour my speech with non-literal imagery and slang. But I also acknowledge that there are still underlying rules to any language. And if I seem like a prescriptivist it's only because I'm dyslexic so have to work harder than most to make my thoughts understandable -- so much so that a frequent phrase I used as a teen was "if the point of languages is to be understood then who gives a shit if I'm grammatically correct when you clearly understood me?" Suffice to say, human languages aren't something that comes naturally to me. Thus I might be more acutely aware of the rules where you might take them for granted.
      - 6y ago