Lego or Legos?

[Brickdoctor]

Depends on the context. In an informal/casual setting (with friends, my parents, my brother) I use the Dutch equivalent of "legoing" all the time and use and conjugate it as a normal verb (I have Legoed etc.). My mother does the same with the Dutch equivalent of the fantasy word "keyboarding" (playing synthesizer). Also it's typical in Dutch to use "computering" as a verb meaning "using the computer" similarly to how "showering" means "using the shower" or "gaming" is "playing computer games". It simple: it's shorter, so it's more practical. :)

Ah, I see. Maybe nobody uses it in English because it just doesn't sound right.

[AussieJimbo]

If you were presenting a short LEGO segment on TV you might need to use the phrase "Here's something I legoed earlier".

:classic:

[The Crazy One]

Depends on the context. In an informal/casual setting (with friends, my parents, my brother) I use the Dutch equivalent of "legoing" all the time and use and conjugate it as a normal verb (I have Legoed etc.). My mother does the same with the Dutch equivalent of the fantasy word "keyboarding" (playing synthesizer). Also it's typical in Dutch to use "computering" as a verb meaning "using the computer" similarly to how "showering" means "using the shower" or "gaming" is "playing computer games". It simple: it's shorter, so it's more practical. :)

Yeah but sadly that doesn't apply to English. I reckon as our language deteriorates then turning nouns into verbs will become more and more common, which is sad, but what can I do. I'll just end up being the posh one! But putting in ings doesn't annoy me no where near as much as Legos!

[gotoAndLego]

But, what about sheep? If you lived on a farm with more than would sheep would you refer to them as sheeps? Its the same principal.

There is no common usage of sheeps as the plural form of sheep; however, Legos is commonly used as a plural form of Lego. People have been commonly using google as a verb, despite it being a noun.

[tedbeard]

Legos is commonly used as a plural form of Lego.

Only in the United States and to a lessor extent in Canada. The LEGO company has asked that people use the correct form so the issue should be closed.

[Syn]

what if your trying to refer to them as a whole, sets, bricks and elements? "I have a box full of LEGO"? or "The back room is a room full of LEGO"? That just doesn't sound right to me. You wouldn't say "I have two Chevy in my garage" would you? but meh it really doesn't matter to me what you call it, when I send my fiance after LegoSSSSSS she always comes back with LEGO brand. I agree though, less debate about the name more debate about what someones BUILT.

[LegoDad42]

Like many have said..it really doesn't matter. There isn't any toy company-name-gestapo so if you want to say Legos or Lego or Lego bricks...have no fear...

It's actually silly for a company to tell you(hard working people who spend their own money on this product) how to 'properly' say or spell their company name. Will they ban you from typing or saying it improperly?...silly, silly Lego...

As long as others know what you mean, that's all that matters.

I wonder if Hasbro insist that we call all their toys a 'HASBRO'...hmmmm....;)

[AndyC]

what if your trying to refer to them as a whole, sets, bricks and elements? "I have a box full of LEGO"? or "The back room is a room full of LEGO"? That just doesn't sound right to me.

I grew up saying 'a box full of LEGO', so anything else just sounds weird. LEGOs, in particular, sounds utterly bizarre.

[jth781]

LEGO

[Artanis I]

what if your trying to refer to them as a whole, sets, bricks and elements? "I have a box full of LEGO"? or "The back room is a room full of LEGO"? That just doesn't sound right to me. You wouldn't say "I have two Chevy in my garage" would you? but meh it really doesn't matter to me what you call it, when I send my fiance after LegoSSSSSS she always comes back with LEGO brand. I agree though, less debate about the name more debate about what someones BUILT.

It's like "chalk". "I have a full box of chalks" is completely wrong. It's pieces of chalk, or just chalk. Try it that way.

Same way many people wrongly call a "tin can" a "tin". It is NOT a tin, it is a can made of tin - therefore "tins" is wrong. It's not legos, it's bricks made of Lego/LEGO.

Another one: timber plank. Plank made of timber. You don't call a pile of them timbers, but you call them planks, timber or timber planks.

[LEGOscum]

This image is not new, nor is the explanation. Back around 2002 The LEGO Co. had a domain called legos.com that would show this image and then redirect the viewer to lego.com. The LEGO Co. publish proper usage guidelines in all their press kits and has a permanent web page instructing people on how to use "LEGO".

[Destroydacre]

It's like "chalk". "I have a full box of chalks" is completely wrong. It's pieces of chalk, or just chalk. Try it that way.

Same way many people wrongly call a "tin can" a "tin". It is NOT a tin, it is a can made of tin - therefore "tins" is wrong. It's not legos, it's bricks made of Lego/LEGO.

Another one: timber plank. Plank made of timber. You don't call a pile of them timbers, but you call them planks, timber or timber planks.

The difference is your examples are common nouns which are things that most people learned how to speak growing up. You were taught that the plural of chalk is chalk. No one taught you about the "correct" plural for trademarked names like Lego or Chevrolet which is where the ambiguity comes in. Since it's not something that's taught, people are going to create their own plural form based on what sounds right to them. The plural form may be wrong officially according to whomever owns the trademark, but it's not wrong to the individual who came up with it.

[The Crazy One]

There is no common usage of sheeps as the plural form of sheep; however, Legos is commonly used as a plural form of Lego. People have been commonly using google as a verb, despite it being a noun.

Either way it's WRONG.

[blueandwhite]

The difference is your examples are common nouns which are things that most people learned how to speak growing up. You were taught that the plural of chalk is chalk. No one taught you about the "correct" plural for trademarked names like Lego or Chevrolet which is where the ambiguity comes in. Since it's not something that's taught, people are going to create their own plural form based on what sounds right to them. The plural form may be wrong officially according to whomever owns the trademark, but it's not wrong to the individual who came up with it.

This is the reason many companies end up losing their Trademarks.

Just becasue a person uses a noun incorrectly doesn't mean that they're actually right. It simply means that they are ignorant. People who are calling LEGO bricks "Legos" aren't correct; they are uninformed. To suggest that being uninformed makes somehow makes you correct is absurd. It's akin to suggesting that when you spell a word incorrectly or you make a grammatical error that you aren't wrong because you're ignorant of your own mistakes. While such errors may eventually fall into fair use and become part of a greater lexicon, the origin of the word is still based on an error in grammar.

[UKver2.0]

What do you make of

? It seems that not every company is averse to pluralization.

[Destroydacre]

This is the reason many companies end up losing their Trademarks.

Just becasue a person uses a noun incorrectly doesn't mean that they're actually right. It simply means that they are ignorant. People who are calling LEGO bricks "Legos" aren't correct; they are uninformed. To suggest that being uninformed makes somehow makes you correct is absurd. It's akin to suggesting that when you spell a word incorrectly or you make a grammatical error that you aren't wrong because you're ignorant of your own mistakes. While such errors may eventually fall into fair use and become part of a greater lexicon, the origin of the word is still based on an error in grammar.

I'm not saying it's right to everyone, just to the individual. And you're right it does stem from ignorance (however I will say that I don't fault anyone who doesn't know that Lego doesn't want the term "legos" being used). My point is that's how things work and unless Lego does a huge marketing campaign saying "Don't call our product 'legos'" then the term is going to continue to be used. My point was never that the term "legos" is correct.

[Artanis I]

The difference is your examples are common nouns which are things that most people learned how to speak growing up. You were taught that the plural of chalk is chalk.

I would actually disagree with that: there is no plural for "chalk" - there is no singular either. You can't have 1 chalk, 2 chalk / 2 chalks. It's not like sheep: 1 sheep, 2 sheep etc.

The key is "1 piece of x" & "2 pieces of x" as opposed to "1 y" & "2 ys"

Of course I'm preaching mostly to the converted here (it's the uninformed/ignorant that will continue to say legos regardless of what we say here, as you say, those who learn to say it one way will probably continue to do so)... but hey, it boosts my self-security

edit: and I see what you're saying, I'm just nitpicking. A huge "IT IS LEGO NOT LEGOS" campaign would be awesome... add "even [insert unintelligent celebrity here] knows that!"

Edited January 17, 2011 by Artanis I

[mo123567]

I'm sorry but I've given a lot of my money to the LEGO company and if I have a pile of bricks I am going to save a bit of my time by referring to them as legos (I didn't even capitalize the L) as opposed to LEGO bricks. If I ask someone to give me a plastic brick they will probably reply "you mean a lego?" provided there are some nearby otherwise they would be clueless. I could also say "please hand me blue LEGO" as opposed to blue legos, and I would likely only get one brick and an odd look for sounding like a caveman.

I actually think that shows your brand dominance if people generally refer to small plastic bricks as legos. If your brand name is synonymous with what you make then you are doing pretty well. If a kid tells his parents to buy legos as opposed to plastic interconnecting bricks, wouldn't that decrease the chance of them accidentily coming home with megablocks?

Actually, it doesn't really matter. I'm just messing around with the wording. I'm surprised LEGO even brought it up. Either way they are raking in a good part of my income.

[Brick88]

After reading this board a bit I've come to the conclusion that I need to educate most people on some basic grammar and trademark principles.

Please do stop using "LEGO" as the plural form for LEGO pieces. Instead of saying "I need a tub to sort all of my LEGO", instead use proper grammar and say "I need a tub to sort all of my LEGO pieces" (or bricks, toys, components, etc.) You are destroying the LEGO trademark by referring to the pieces themselves as "LEGO". If everyone does this, the term "LEGO" will become generic, and other inferior companies will legally be able to produce and sell "LEGO".

LEGO themselves have made this point numerous times. I tracked down a bit of text off of a LEGO box from 1980:

"Dear Parents and Children

The word LEGO® is a brand name and is very special to all of us in the LEGO Group Companies. We would sincerely like your help in keeping it special. Please always refer to our bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys' and not 'LEGOS.' By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud and that stands for quality the world over. Thank you!"

As a personal note, I think it would also be appropriate to call them "LEGO pieces", or "LEGO components", in addition to "LEGO Bricks or Toys".

Thank you for respecting LEGO as a company and abiding by their wishes. Please stop using LEGO (and of course, LEGOS) as the plural form for LEGO pieces. Thank you!

[chelman]

I would contend that saying Legos does indeed sound strange and there are probably even sound linguistic reasons why this may be so. On the other hand I wouldn't get to histerical about it. It's a brand name and as such not everybody can be expected to know exactly what rules govern its declination. This same phenomenon occurs in relation to other brands.

For example if you go out and buy two cars from BMW...did you just buy two BMWs? Did you buy two cars manufactured by the BMW company? This also depends on the language. In Polish for that matter there is no standard way of pluralizing BMW but you can speak of two Toyotas. In case of Lego it is common to say bricks or Lego bricks because that's the way the language works. I'm sure there are several such intricacies in other languages as well. If you realize that the internet Lego community is pretty international, it shouldn't come as a surprise that some people will use Legos. I wouldn't really make a fuss out of it.

Also bear in mind that I'm sure that there are several niche hobbies and areas of expertise which also have their own particular jargon and vocabulary. I'm sure EB AFOLs would not really care to be called ignorant just because they don't know the correct naming convention related to bookbinding or carpentry. ;-)

As to the trademark and the appeal to not generically apply the term Lego to all of them...that's outright absurd. No, hang on...it's not absurd that Lego makes such an appeal. It's an action that they NEED to take, should they ever need to document the fact that they did attempt to protect a trademark. It's similar to Coca Cola employing people whose job it is to travel around the country to order Coke in bars and restuarants and verify whether they get Coca Cola and not Pepsi or another brand.

It is absurd, however, to expect that consumers will undertake to protect a trademark. They have absolutely no responsibility in the matter. That lies solely with the company. And since my last name is not Kristiansen and I haven't heard IPO rumours I for one don't intend to undertake actions to protect their trademark. And so I will play with my Lego and not my Lego bricks. ;-)

In reality since the brand is evidently active and Lego does indeed undertake actions to protect the trademark, no court will ever rule against them and state that it has become a generic word that can be used by anyone. Compare this to the famous case of Xerox where they did NOT undertake action to protect the trademark. I wouldn't worry about it.

The last things is the patents. I for one am glad that all of the patents ran out and that they lost against MegaBloks when they wanted to protect the studded appearance as a trademark. The main reason is that patents (and all other IP related rights) in their *current* form simply thwart innovation and competition (i'm talking more general here, not only referring to Lego). That's a long discussion and this probably is not its place but it's something that becomes ever more evident. The second, specifically Lego-related reason is that competition from MegaBloks, Cobi et al. means that Lego has to do their best. They have to be even more cautious of the quality of the pieces and the designs and have to undertake ever more action to strengthen their brand. In the end this is always beneficial to the consumer who buys the stuff. Additional competition never hurt anyone.

In my view Lego still succeeds in this, I do believe that the quality of the material and the designs is still superior to any product on the market. The day that Cobi or MB will surpass them in these areas is the day I will switch brands....

[Insane Ostrich]

Language is pretty much majority vote I think. If enough people use LEGO as plural it goes, if enough people use legos as plural it goes as well. Although since it's a trademark things get complicated. They have the right to encourage people to use LEGO over legos, but I doubt they would refuse service to anyone using the term legos.

I myself prefer LEGO, language is complicated enoguh without adding extra letters to it when it's not needed

On a related note, is playing with LEGO refered to as "I'm playing with lego" or "I'm legoing"? I'm dutch and as a kid I used to spend my days with 'legoen' which translates to 'legoing'. Now I'm older I can't stand people using the term. Anyone else have strong feelings about either of those?

[chelman]

Legoinig doesn't really work in English.

In Dutch it's fine, though I wouldn't use it myself. There are more examples of turning nouns into verbs in Dutch, mind you, you have those in English as well but not quite as common and not quite as acceptable for neologisms.

Saying: "I'm going beering with my friends." sounds stupid in English.

Saying: "Ik ga pilsen met mijn maten." sounds OK in Cloggie. ;-)

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

I get annoyed whenever I hear "Legos". I just do... It's incorrect for me... But if other people want to use it... Well, what gives.

[splatman]

A bit off-topic here, considering what others said earlier about sheep v. sheeps:

A word with 2 Es in it usually is plural, e.g. teeth. So, that would mean sheep is plural, which would make the singular "shoop". "Is there one shoop or are there many sheep on that farm?" Plural for foot is feet, but the plural for boot is not beet. How 'bout moose? Meese? Yes, this is getting downright silly, but I'll go on, for the lulz.

Singular for dice and rice? Why not douse and rouse, just like the singular for mice is mouse? Has anyone groused over the fact that the plural for grouse is not grice After 9? Zeroteen, oneteen, and twoteen.

And let's not get started on EngRish.

[Lego Otaku]

Strangely enough mouses is the proper plural for more than one computer mouse. But for rodent, it's mice.