6 ms·

Legos - so very much a personal pet peeve. see this discussion: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/legos-not-lego http://english.stackexchange.co

by brc 14y ago

Legos - so very much a personal pet peeve. see this discussion: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/legos-not-lego http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/legos-not-l... Although I very much disagree with the upvoted answer which essentially says we're free to invent words and call it english. 1 Company called Lego 1 lego brick or piece 1 lego set 1 lego construction 2 lego bricks or pieces 2 lego sets To me, it's like 'sheep'. One sheep, flock of sheep - never 'sheeps'. It's not so much the problem of pluralising the word, but by pluralising it, you're saying that individual piece is a Lego, which makes no sense to me. EDIT: To prove my point. Take this story: A man walks into an Apple Store. He buys 1 Apple MacBook, 2 Apple iPods and 3 Apple iPads. He takes them home to configure and set up. His wife walks in. Does she say: a) Oh look, my husband is playing with his new Apple products b) Oh look, my husband is playing with his new Apples

stephen_g 14y ago
I like how the accepted answer pretty much declares "all pluralisation in English works by adding 's' or 'es'," completely missing out on other completely normal words, like "a basket full of fish[1]"... 1. 'Fishes' can also be valid in tht circumstance - http://australianmuseum.net.au/fish-and-fishes http://australianmuseum.net.au/fish-and-fishes - but 'fish' is still a correct English plural.
- lotsofcows 14y ago
  "Fish" is not the correct English plural as a cursory examination of any English Bible written in the last 600 years will prove. Other discussions on this site lead to the following addendum: When using the word "English" I mean English as spoken by the English in England. Not the USAian dialect.
  - phaemon 14y ago
    Ezekiel 47:9 And everything that liveth, which moveth, wheresoever the rivers shall come, shall live, and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be wholesome, and everything shall live whither the river cometh. - 1599 Geneva Bible ...and the KJV has similar. You didn't even check! :)
    - lotsofcows 14y ago
      I was thinking of the parable of the fishes: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&version=KJV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&version=GNV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&...
anonymous 14y ago
Sheep is a bug in the language and the only reason it's not fixed is because it's not used very often. Like scissors and pants, which have correctly evolved to "a scissor" and "a pant" where I live. On the subject of Lego: Lego the company - "Lego had high profit this year" A lego heap - "Put away the lego when you're done with it" A lego piece - "I'm looking for a 2x3 lego and three 2x2 block legos" It's all very understandable and natural and you should just let go.
- jbert 14y ago
  "the only reason it's not fixed is because it's not used very often." What is your view on the word 'children'?
- glhaynes 14y ago
  Like scissors and pants, which have correctly evolved to "a scissor" and "a pant" where I live. At the risk of your anonymity, anonymous, can you say where this is? I haven't heard that usage before. (Interesting find while googling for that usage — iCarly and perhaps Rhode Island apparently say "a scissors": http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2009/07/icarly-scissors-huh.html http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2009/07/icarly-scissors-huh.html)
  - anonymous 14y ago
    More than one people use the anonymous account, so I won't really sacrifice my anonymity by sharing. That said, I'm Bulgarian and we use both "ножица" (scissor, singular) and "ножици" (scissors, plural), both deriving from "нож" -- knife; the latter also means more than one pair of scissors. We never use "a pair of scissors". Unfortunately, I couldn't see if the singular or plural form came first, because the very first published Bulgarian dictionary from 1900 lists both. It also doesn't have the word for "pants", so I can't comment on that neither. In general though, we never use "a pair of" for things that are physically a single object, like a scissors or a pants; "a pair of scissors" would mean two distinct scissors. Of course, all languages have exceptions to every rule and for the above in Bulgarian it's "glasses". We do say "a pair of glasses". We also say "a frameS for glasses" speaking about a single frame for a single pair of glasses.
dagw 14y ago
I've heard the following said plenty of times: "What kind of computers do you use at your office?" "We have mainly Apples, but also a few Windows computers".
kyrias 14y ago
Indeed, the plural of sheep should be shoop. Though you do realize that every word in the English language are words that people have at one time invented.
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
obligatory brian regan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK6Is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK6Is

by brc 14y ago

stephen_g 14y ago

I like how the accepted answer pretty much declares "all pluralisation in English works by adding 's' or 'es'," completely missing out on other completely normal words, like "a basket full of fish[1]"... 1. 'Fishes' can also be valid in tht circumstance - http://australianmuseum.net.au/fish-and-fishes http://australianmuseum.net.au/fish-and-fishes - but 'fish' is still a correct English plural.

lotsofcows 14y ago
"Fish" is not the correct English plural as a cursory examination of any English Bible written in the last 600 years will prove. Other discussions on this site lead to the following addendum: When using the word "English" I mean English as spoken by the English in England. Not the USAian dialect.
- phaemon 14y ago
  Ezekiel 47:9 And everything that liveth, which moveth, wheresoever the rivers shall come, shall live, and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be wholesome, and everything shall live whither the river cometh. - 1599 Geneva Bible ...and the KJV has similar. You didn't even check! :)
  - lotsofcows 14y ago
    I was thinking of the parable of the fishes: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&version=KJV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&version=GNV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A19&...

anonymous 14y ago

Sheep is a bug in the language and the only reason it's not fixed is because it's not used very often. Like scissors and pants, which have correctly evolved to "a scissor" and "a pant" where I live. On the subject of Lego: Lego the company - "Lego had high profit this year" A lego heap - "Put away the lego when you're done with it" A lego piece - "I'm looking for a 2x3 lego and three 2x2 block legos" It's all very understandable and natural and you should just let go.

jbert 14y ago
"the only reason it's not fixed is because it's not used very often." What is your view on the word 'children'?
glhaynes 14y ago
Like scissors and pants, which have correctly evolved to "a scissor" and "a pant" where I live. At the risk of your anonymity, anonymous, can you say where this is? I haven't heard that usage before. (Interesting find while googling for that usage — iCarly and perhaps Rhode Island apparently say "a scissors": http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2009/07/icarly-scissors-huh.html http://danwarp.blogspot.com/2009/07/icarly-scissors-huh.html)
- anonymous 14y ago
  More than one people use the anonymous account, so I won't really sacrifice my anonymity by sharing. That said, I'm Bulgarian and we use both "ножица" (scissor, singular) and "ножици" (scissors, plural), both deriving from "нож" -- knife; the latter also means more than one pair of scissors. We never use "a pair of scissors". Unfortunately, I couldn't see if the singular or plural form came first, because the very first published Bulgarian dictionary from 1900 lists both. It also doesn't have the word for "pants", so I can't comment on that neither. In general though, we never use "a pair of" for things that are physically a single object, like a scissors or a pants; "a pair of scissors" would mean two distinct scissors. Of course, all languages have exceptions to every rule and for the above in Bulgarian it's "glasses". We do say "a pair of glasses". We also say "a frameS for glasses" speaking about a single frame for a single pair of glasses.

dagw 14y ago

I've heard the following said plenty of times: "What kind of computers do you use at your office?" "We have mainly Apples, but also a few Windows computers".

kyrias 14y ago

Indeed, the plural of sheep should be shoop. Though you do realize that every word in the English language are words that people have at one time invented.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

obligatory brian regan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK6Is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWzYaZDK6Is