LEGO Pet Peeves

[Artanis I]

The Danish pronunciation of the "e" in Lego is somewhere between the English vowel sounds in "leg" "lay" & "lair", hence why you will find some people adamant it should be Leggo, others that it should be Laygo... when they are both not strictly correct anyway. Curiously no one argues over the pronunciation of the "o", when I've never heard anyone say it in English anything like how the Danish say it (oh v aw)

[dr_spock]

7 hours ago, kibosh said:

Thank you for this!  I've been saying this forever.

And on a related topic, I was just thinking about this the other day.  Where is it stated that it is wrong to pronounce it LAYgo?

Le is pronounced LAY in Italian, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Capparezza]

8 hours ago, dr_spock said:

Le is pronounced LAY in Italian, n'est-ce pas?

 

Err, no? At least not in northern Italien accent

See here for reference sentences: https://dict.leo.org/italienisch-deutsch/le

[x105Black]

Leg-oh.

[Johnny1360]

Nevermind 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Johnny1360

[Still Raindrop]

On 4/16/2018 at 6:02 AM, BrickG said:

People complaining about people saying Legos.

It's grammatically correct. You can pluralize brand names. If you have 10 NES consoles and it's not incorrect to say you have "ten Nintendos". You can have a pile of Ford trucks and cars and stuff and you can technically say "you have a pile of Fords".

There's no rule in the English language that says you can't. It, at most, can sound a bit awkward. But it's not technically incorrect...

 

LEGO's motivation here is to simply protect their brand. I can find no fault in that. But everyone (including LEGO) has some incorrect ideas here. No English teacher could mark you down for writing "LEGOs" in a paper because there are zero rules that actually say it's wrong. I've had this discussion a thousand times though but it always turns into a debate when there's nothing to debate. There's fact and there's mistruths. Saying it's incorrect to say "LEGOs" is factually incorrect. You can at most say there's a preferred way to say it (pushed by brand protection motivations).

You mean you don't take the sticks from your Popsicle brand ice pops and the empty cups from your Jell-O brand gelatin desserts and put them in a Dumpster brand large trash container? 

I agree, though. "Legos" sounds like a more natural plural to me. I used it when I was a kid, and I still use it (despite going through a time where I tried not to say it). When it's the common term, as it is where I live, it's a bit pedantic to insist on not using it. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Still Raindrop

[Giantorange]

On 4/16/2018 at 1:02 PM, BrickG said:

People complaining about people saying Legos.

It's grammatically correct. You can pluralize brand names. If you have 10 NES consoles and it's not incorrect to say you have "ten Nintendos". You can have a pile of Ford trucks and cars and stuff and you can technically say "you have a pile of Fords".

There's no rule in the English language that says you can't. It, at most, can sound a bit awkward. But it's not technically incorrect...

 

Well there is really.  Not all words by any means are pluralised by adding an 's'.   'Tooth', or 'sheep' for example.  Lego group invented the word, and if they say the plural of Lego is Lego, then surely that is the correct way to refer to it.

[MAB]

3 minutes ago, Giantorange said:

Lego group invented the word, and if they say the plural of Lego is Lego, then surely that is the correct way to refer to it.

They don't say that. They say the plural of LEGO(R) brick is LEGO bricks.

[fred67]

On 4/16/2018 at 8:02 AM, BrickG said:

People complaining about people saying Legos.

It's grammatically correct. You can pluralize brand names. If you have 10 NES consoles and it's not incorrect to say you have "ten Nintendos". You can have a pile of Ford trucks and cars and stuff and you can technically say "you have a pile of Fords".

There's no rule in the English language that says you can't. It, at most, can sound a bit awkward. But it's not technically incorrect...

You can pluralize brand names, but it's certainly not "technically correct."

So I'm in a "beating a dead horse" mood now, but it IS wrong to say "ten Nintendos."  Nintendo is a company, so unless you're referring to 10 companies, all named "Nintendo," then it is, in fact, WRONG.

If you have 10 NES Consoles, then you have 10 Nintendo consoles.  If you have 10 Ford trucks, then you have 10 Ford trucks - you don't have 10 Fords.

While it's generally accepted, because people know what you're talking about, it's not technically correct.

There's a reason that companies give their products names - they generally make a lot of products, not a single one of them is supposed to be referred to by the company name alone.

So I don't care when people say "Legos, " or "Fords," or "Nintendos" because we all know what people are meaning when they say it, but to claim it's not technically incorrect is technically incorrect.

 

[Erik Leppen]

On ‎16‎-‎4‎-‎2018 at 2:02 PM, BrickG said:

People complaining about people saying Legos.

It's grammatically correct. You can pluralize brand names. If you have 10 NES consoles and it's not incorrect to say you have "ten Nintendos". You can have a pile of Ford trucks and cars and stuff and you can technically say "you have a pile of Fords".

There's no rule in the English language that says you can't. It, at most, can sound a bit awkward. But it's not technically incorrect...

This is because Nintendo and Ford are countable, meaning you can have "a Nintendo" or "a ford" (with an article), and everyone understands that "a Ford" is a car and a Nintendo is a game console. So you can have one Ford, or two Fords. Can this be done with Lego too? What's one Lego? What if I say that there's a particular Lego that consists of about 1100 Legos? Do you need hundreds of Legos to build a car, or do you just buy one nice Lego in the toy store and build it? I wouldn't be surprised if this was wrong because there's no clear definition of a Lego like there is for a Ford.

 

Anyhow, my own pet peeves...

1. That old gray is still Gray and new, standard gray is Bluish Gray. I think it's about time that this is switched, and current gray is called Gray and old gray is called Old Gray. (Yes, I know a switch would generate a truckload of problems, but it's still something that seems to disturb me from time to time)
2. That Reddish Brown is alphabetically far away from Brown, where I expect it. Same goes for all colors with a prefix. I'd much rather see colors renamed so that their alphabetic ordering groups by color; that is: Blue; Blue dark; Blue medium, so that all blues are together.
3. That there's no easy way on Bricklink to hide all the old colours that are out of production. I still click on "Dark Gray" or "Brown" regularly only to realize that that's not the color I mean, and I still have to think "OK, Light Orange is old, Bright Light Orange is current".
4. That MLCad still defaults to the old colors with no way to change them (but I guess MLCad is just old...)

5. That LDView part list export seems to sort the part list by part ID, which is about the least intuitive way possible.

6. When people are full of praise for a Technic set because it looks cool or has an original subject matter, even though it's lacking in functions (the 42064 Ocean Explorer was a bad offender) I mean, come on, what theme are we talking. For looks, there's basically all other themes.

7. That there are very obvious gaps in the part/color availability. I.e. basic parts not existing in basic colors (or existed once, 1x in one set 20 years ago, and therefore so expensive it could just as well be considered non-existing, like Tan slope 33 3 x 1 inverted)

 

8. That many Technic tyres are too wide compared to real-life tyres

 

It seems like a lot, but don't worry, I'm a pretty positive person, but since there's a topic for this... :P

 

[x105Black]

5 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

What's one Lego?

A piece of LEGO is a LEGO.  Many pieces of LEGO is LEGO.

5 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Anyhow, my own pet peeves...

1. That old gray is still Gray and new, standard gray is Bluish Gray. I think it's about time that this is switched, and current gray is called Gray and old gray is called Old Gray. (Yes, I know a switch would generate a truckload of problems, but it's still something that seems to disturb me from time to time)

This doesn't bother me as much, but I guess that's because I like both colors and I do think the new grays are bluish.

5 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

7. That there are very obvious gaps in the part/color availability. I.e. basic parts not existing in basic colors (or existed once, 1x in one set 20 years ago, and therefore so expensive it could just as well be considered non-existing, like Tan slope 33 3 x 1 inverted)

This does bother me.  The set that piece was in was ugly, I can't imagine many would have it, and it's a very useful piece.  There are many such pieces.  Not enough plates were ever made in transparent.

[MAB]

12 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

7. That there are very obvious gaps in the part/color availability. I.e. basic parts not existing in basic colors (or existed once, 1x in one set 20 years ago, and therefore so expensive it could just as well be considered non-existing, like Tan slope 33 3 x 1 inverted)
 

 

 

These ones? (Not mine, Huw's from brickset).

[Erik Leppen]

Er, yes, that one. (If he/she sold those against current Bricklink prices, he/she could buy a new Millennium Falcon set (75192).)

[BrickG]

19 hours ago, Giantorange said:

Well there is really.  Not all words by any means are pluralised by adding an 's'.   'Tooth', or 'sheep' for example.  Lego group invented the word, and if they say the plural of Lego is Lego, then surely that is the correct way to refer to it.

The LEGO Group doesn't have any say in language. Literally zero. Culture and societies have a say in language. They can promote something as being the plural for a word that they originated but have no real control over it. That's what the generic trademarks are all about actually. That's why LEGO fights against this. Because they have no control over the language, only potentially influence. If more than the USA started calling it "Legos" enough to erode their rights to the term (their fear) then BAM, legally even then it's gone out of their hands. Heck, it's out of their hands right now but they CAN try to push against it with their influence. But the laws illustrate that language is controlled by the people, not the companies. And the companies can lose any rights to influence even if the people decide something is "right". Like Kleenex or Velcro. This shows already that the LEGO Group doesn't actually have any real right or power to enforce language or control the language used with their products, only the influence to try to make it not go too much in a bad way for them (Legos being a bad way for them since it would threaten their very name!).

And again, language wise, despite some protests, there's no rules against it. Yeah you can't say "sheeps" and have it be correct BUT that's a word in the dictionary. LEGO is not. Therefore it has different rules that apply and there's nothing that says you can't pluralize brand names or apply those brand names to any element within the brand. Heck, it doesn't even have to be in the same brand. You can technically look at some Mega Bloks and say "look at all those legos" and while it's not the same brand and not technically correct in that way, it's STILL correct English. You could call a collection of car parts "Legos" and it would still be technically correct English. But of course LEGO doesn't want that...

 

Thank you for this!  I've been saying this forever.

It's good to know I'm not alone in knowing the facts here XD.

[Still Raindrop]

40 minutes ago, BrickG said:

The LEGO Group doesn't have any say in language. Literally zero. Culture and societies have a say in language. They can promote something as being the plural for a word that they originated but have no real control over it. That's what the generic trademarks are all about actually. That's why LEGO fights against this. Because they have no control over the language, only potentially influence. If more than the USA started calling it "Legos" enough to erode their rights to the term (their fear) then BAM, legally even then it's gone out of their hands. Heck, it's out of their hands right now but they CAN try to push against it with their influence. But the laws illustrate that language is controlled by the people, not the companies. And the companies can lose any rights to influence even if the people decide something is "right". Like Kleenex or Velcro. This shows already that the LEGO Group doesn't actually have any real right or power to enforce language or control the language used with their products, only the influence to try to make it not go too much in a bad way for them (Legos being a bad way for them since it would threaten their very name!).

And again, language wise, despite some protests, there's no rules against it. Yeah you can't say "sheeps" and have it be correct BUT that's a word in the dictionary. LEGO is not. Therefore it has different rules that apply and there's nothing that says you can't pluralize brand names or apply those brand names to any element within the brand. Heck, it doesn't even have to be in the same brand. You can technically look at some Mega Bloks and say "look at all those legos" and while it's not the same brand and not technically correct in that way, it's STILL correct English. You could call a collection of car parts "Legos" and it would still be technically correct English. But of course LEGO doesn't want that...

Precisely. Language is dictated by people, not by companies. I'm sure the Hoover people weren't pleased that people in the UK "hoover" their floors with a Dyson or a Kirby, but it's an accepted word in the UK--as a verb, even! One can try to argue that it's not "technically correct" to use it . . . but one could also argue that it's not "technically correct" to say "I vacuumed the floor" instead of "I hoovered the floor." After all, "vacuum" was only a noun before the introduction of the vacuum cleaner. And yet, nobody says "I cleaned the floor with a vacuum cleaner." So the two verbs "to hoover" and "to vacuum" are found in most dictionaries.

I think that, if people want to get prescriptivist, they should stop focusing on using "Lego" instead of "Legos" (though, as has been noted, the Lego Group doesn't even want people to say "I built something with Lego"--instead, they recommend saying "I built something with LEGO® elements"). Instead, they should work towards getting "thou" and "thee" back as singular forms of address, with "you" being reserved only for the plural. That's something that could actually be useful.

[fred67]

Again, just because it's accepted (and I don't complain about it, really!) doesn't mean it's the correct use of grammar.  "I vacuumed the floor" is actually not really correct; "I vacuum cleaned the floor" is.  Just because we got lazy with language doesn't make it "technically correct."  It's not, it's merely commonly accepted.  So I don't care if you say "I vacuumed the floor," or "I play with legos," or "I googled something," but I do object to someone claiming it's "technically correct."

 

EDIT: at some point, some dictionaries will add those words as verbs, at which point people might claim it's "technically correct," but since when does a publisher get to set the rules for an entire language?  In any event, I'm not arguing about things being commonly accepted, I'm arguing about the proper use of grammar (rules I violate all the time, I admit).

Edited April 18, 2018 by fred67

[Still Raindrop]

But that's just the point--common usage does dictate what's correct, on a large scale. Otherwise one might say that the entirety of the English language is technically incorrect, because it's very different than it was when Chaucer used it. But that's just the thing: languages change, and those changes are driven by usage. English, at least, doesn't have a central authority dictating what the rules are (as French does--but even its power is contested). Look at the grammatical differences between, say, the MLA style and the APA style. In a way, there's no such thing as "technically correct" in English, because there's no one authority that everyone agrees to. There

I am a little confused by your statement that "I vacuumed the floor" is incorrect. Every dictionary I can find lists "vacuum" as a verb meaning "to clean with a vacuum cleaner." What indication do you have that it's an incorrect usage? You seem to be using a prescriptivist view of linguistics (always tough with a living language), but I'm not sure exactly where you'd draw the line. Would you argue that using "you were" instead of "thou wert" when referring to one person is technically incorrect? I'm not trying to be rude, by the way--I really am interested in figuring out where you're coming from.

[fred67]

It's cool, I don't mind the discussion - I will accept vacuum as a verb at this point because it's established, but it was established from an incorrect use of the noun.  "Googled" is also now considered a verb.

If we get back on topic, rules about names and their pluralization hasn't really changed.  You don't see "Fords" or "Legos" in a dictionary because they are proper names.  There are rules about names.  "I have 3 Nintendos" is just not correct.  You don't have three companies named Nintendo.  You really don't see dictionary changes like that ever become acceptable... you don't see "coke" listed as "soda" in any of the main dictionaries people commonly accept as being authoritative (I didn't see it anywhere, actually).  Merriam-Webster does not have "hoover" in it as a verb (although some other dictionaries do, which means it's at least debatable).

"I have 3 legos" makes no sense, because even with it's commonly accepted usage, it tells you nothing about what someone has... three lego bricks?  Plates?  Tiles?  Books?  Games?  "I have 3 Nintendos" also makes no sense; is it 3 switches?  NES systems?  Genesis systems?  Gameboys?  When someone says they have 3 Fords, you know what they mean - but it's not "correct" at all, and something like that, as far as I can tell, and despite popular use has never been rolled into the language.

EDIT: Yes, I recall now that Genesis is SEGA.  Whatever.

Edited April 18, 2018 by fred67

[MAB]

2 hours ago, BrickG said:

And again, language wise, despite some protests, there's no rules against it. Yeah you can't say "sheeps" and have it be correct BUT that's a word in the dictionary. LEGO is not.

It's good to know I'm not alone in knowing the facts here XD.

4

What is the dictionary? There are loads of dictionaries.

And some of them have an entry for LEGO:

Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lego?s=t

OED: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/241282?redirectedFrom=lego#eid

Cambridge: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lego

And where there are historical usage examples, it is interesting to note that the "wrong" usage has been going on ever since day one. The OED and Cambridge both list Legos as a plural form (with mainly US usage).

 

I wonder when "to lego" will become acceptable. After all, adults don't play with LEGO(R) / LEGO / Lego / lego (bricks) as we are on a higher plane. We lego.

Edited April 18, 2018 by MAB

[Still Raindrop]

14 minutes ago, fred67 said:

It's cool, I don't mind the discussion - I will accept vacuum as a verb at this point because it's established, but it was established from an incorrect use of the noun.  "Googled" is also now considered a verb.

If we get back on topic, rules about names and their pluralization hasn't really changed.  You don't see "Fords" or "Legos" in a dictionary because they are proper names.  There are rules about names.  "I have 3 Nintendos" is just not correct.  You don't have three companies named Nintendo.  You really don't see dictionary changes like that ever become acceptable... you don't see "coke" listed as "soda" in any of the main dictionaries people commonly accept as being authoritative (I didn't see it anywhere, actually).  Merriam-Webster does not have "hoover" in it as a verb (although some other dictionaries do, which means it's at least debatable).

"I have 3 legos" makes no sense, because even with it's commonly accepted usage, it tells you nothing about what someone has... three lego bricks?  Plates?  Tiles?  Books?  Games?  "I have 3 Nintendos" also makes no sense; is it 3 switches?  NES systems?  Genesis systems?  Gameboys?  When someone says they have 3 Fords, you know what they mean - but it's not "correct" at all, and something like that, as far as I can tell, and despite popular use has never been rolled into the language.

 

Glad to hear it! While we do disagree on whether the method by which proper names are made generic and plural can be described as technically correct or not, you do make good points.

I do have a question for you: would you find the sentence "I built a castle out of Lego" to be just as incorrect as "I built a castle out of Legos"? I know that a lot of people get tripped up about using "Legos" as the plural, but then use "Lego" as a plural noun instead of as an adjective. It seems to me that, for those who are concerned about "correct" usage, both sentences would be equally incorrect. Do you see it this way?

[fred67]

Well, like I mentioned, if someone said that to me, either way, I wouldn't think much about it at all - I understand exactly what they are saying.  I guess I deal a lot with non-native English speakers, so I tend to just accept what they are trying to say and move on.

However, I would consider both of them "technically" incorrect, because you can't build a castle out of a company (or multiple copies of that company).  I see the post above yours and it makes me cringe that dictionaries might add a proper name of a company as a noun, let alone a plural version of it, or a "verb-ified" version of it.  And despite my usage of it, the fact they added "verbify" to the dictionary also makes me cringe.

 

EDIT: I found this funny, from Calvin and Hobbes: "Verbing weirds language."

Edited April 18, 2018 by fred67

[ShaydDeGrai]

2 hours ago, BrickG said:

(...snip) BUT that's a word in the dictionary. LEGO is not. (snip...)

Actually, I happen to own an unabridged dictionary from 1992 that _does_ have a listing for "LEGO".  It claims it's an adjective meaning a product of The LEGO Group company and refers you to their dictionary of Brands and Trademarks.  It also has entries for Q-Tip and Kleenex (described as "diluted trademarks" now in common usage as proper nouns equated with cotton swabs and disposable tissues, respectively).  If they were still publishing this book today (only available on CD-ROM for the past 20 years), I wonder if "LEGO" would be "downgraded" to a proper noun for children's bricks?

8 minutes ago, Still Raindrop said:

But that's just the point--common usage does dictate what's correct, on a large scale. Otherwise one might say that the entirety of the English language is technically incorrect (snip...)

Academics (speaking as a former professor) like to split hairs and violently argue with one another over who or what is or isn't _technically_ _correct_ the problem is, as many have pointed out.  Natural language is barely technical (in scientific terms) and its measure of correctness is best weighed against its ability to clearly and completely convey an idea or message from one person to another, not how well it can be parsed into a sentence diagram ("Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo", anyone?).  And as natural languages go, English is probably one of the worst offenders because its roots touch on so many other (lexically and grammatically) different languages.  While many languages adopt words from foreign tongues to describe foreign objects, English borrowed entire chunks of (incompatible) grammar and syntax.

Governments, scholars and marketeers have all laid claim to being the final authority for English, often trying to rewrite the dictionary or impose a new rule of grammar as a way of advancing some tangential agenda.  "Technically correct" English is littered with artifacts of prior course corrections, idioms, and popular culture references that linger long after the reason for their existence is mostly forgotten.  Rules like "Never split an infinitive" "Never end a sentence with a preposition" come out of an effort to Latin-ize English and exorcise German influences because, according to Strunk (of Strunk and White), the Romans gave us art, music and philosophy and the Germans were just barbarian hordes; (I guess if people like your poetry, you get a pass on things like entertainment bloodsports and mass slavery).  English speaking people were perfectly happy splitting infinitives for centuries before this "rule" was cooked up without fear of misunderstanding, but English teachers have been taking points off for decades since Elements of Style got published.  Phrases like "Dutch treat" (meaning having to pay your own way), or "in Dutch" (unable to payback a debt) were introduced by propagandists working for the British government at a time when rivalries with their continental neighbor were particularly high.  "Jumbo" (meaning exceptionally larger than normal) comes from the name of an elephant once displayed by P.T. Barnum (largest in captivity at the time) - people who hear about Jumbo the Elephant often think that the beast was named for the word as a marketing gimmick, but it actually started the other way around; the elephant's name comes from the Swahili for 'hello' (jambo).  Apple spent millions trying to convince the world to "think different" because they felt offending grammarians would make their ads more memorable, and to this day I meet millennials who don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.  Keeping up with the Kardashians has grossly and frequently abused the word "literally" to the point where it has become its own antonym, making the word utterly meaningless in common practice.

The English language IS technically incorrect and, so long as three or more people are speaking it, it's probably beyond repair.  But the purpose of language is not to be correct or technical, it is to be clear. It usually achieves that clarity through consistency (rather than correctness), and mutual assent between speaker and listener.  Even something as simple as spelling is fluid over time ( though now we have machines with spell checkers trying to enforce rules and conventions upon us with squiggly red underbars).  As usage evolved S.C.U.B.A became SCUBA and eventually scuba (but tip was never T.I.P., if you care); the subjunctive case is barely distinguishable from the indicative case; and, everybody knew exactly what Captain Kirk meant when he said "to boldly go..." despite Strunk spinning in his grave every time Star Trek aired.

So, whether you say "LEGO bricks" or "legos" or draw offense when someone else opts for the variation you shun, please remember that the only 'technically correct' truth is that, whatever you call them, they hurt like hell when you step on them barefoot.

[BrickG]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

What is the dictionary? There are loads of dictionaries.

And some of them have an entry for LEGO:

Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lego?s=t

OED: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/241282?redirectedFrom=lego#eid

Cambridge: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lego

And where there are historical usage examples, it is interesting to note that the "wrong" usage has been going on ever since day one. The OED and Cambridge both list Legos as a plural form (with mainly US usage).

 

I wonder when "to lego" will become acceptable. After all, adults don't play with LEGO(R) / LEGO / Lego / lego (bricks) as we are on a higher plane. We lego.

I'm not sure what the dictionary rules are about trademarks (I think you wouldn't find that in a printed dictionary but I might be wrong) but still the dictionary example you gave says "legos" lol. 

 

[MAB]

Yes, exactly. They give examples of common usage that appear in print, often newsprint or similar.

 

The OED reference to the 1968 Scandinavian Times quote is particularly interesting ... Christiansen likes to joke that ‘someone has yet to come up with something that cannot be built with Legos.’

I've not seen the original quote, but the quotation marks appear to suggest that Christiansen actually said Legos.

 

Anyway, I am going back to legoing my house.

 

 

[Still Raindrop]

In addition: the computer game LEGO Island includes a song that uses the word "Legos".