Lego or Legos?

[Brickington]

My whole (none LEGO fan) family calls them LEGOs and always have. Due to that, I say thing like, "I going to go buy myself some LEGOs (not LEGO sets)."

[Vindicare]

I guess this is more about the community than LEGO. LEGO actually handles it well and doesn't seem to talk "correct grammar" and stuff. But I've consistently seen in the Lego communities just a spreading of non-truths as the motivation behind what's simply a company trying to protect it's brand (nothing wrong with protecting your brand).

When it goes from "Lego wants to protect it's brand" to "you're not using proper grammar when you add the 's'" and "UR WRONG!".... it's just stupid.

Again, the most popular reasoning I've seen, which has already been stated annoyingly in here... is "it's a brand name, you can't pluralize it"... tons of companies do. You can. This statement that you can't is just not true. Cokes, Oreos, Toyotas, 10000x more.

And then the "Lego said so" which is also irrelevant as Lego has no control over language.

These are facts. Opinions on the matter don't matter. You can have an opinion that they're wrong but you'd have a factually wrong opinion.

There is no evidence, at least locally (in the USA), that there's anything "wrong" about saying "Legos". Absolutely none. Until someone shows some data and evidence to suggest otherwise besides "you can't pluralize brands" and "Lego said so" there is none.

I've been trying to remember to not say "Legos" on here and usually don't. I don't mind Lego wanting to protect their brand and am glad to help them. But... the false information... so annoying...

What in the...?! I know someone will be able to find it... I remember reading(and I'm sure I read it on LEGO.com) that they did IN FACT say it was to be printed all in caps and not plural.

[BrickG]

What in the...?! I know someone will be able to find it... I remember reading(and I'm sure I read it on LEGO.com) that they did IN FACT say it was to be printed all in caps and not plural.

I'm not doubting LEGO said anything like that. That's not the issue. Obviously LEGO has it's own rules for how to use it's brand name.

The issue is that doesn't matter grammatically. It doesn't matter linguistically. LEGO doesn't have the power to dictate the rules of grammar or language. They can encourage and request though.

Edited January 27, 2013 by BrickG

[CorneliusMurdock]

This thread started out argumentative. It's one thing to discuss something, it's another to say that people who don't share your point of view are stupid. Please watch your tone.

That being said, from a purely grammatical standpoint, it's a perfectly valid argument that pluralizing a brand name is incorrect. Just because people are able to say things, and do say them, does not make it correct. If you really want to get technical, that's the way it is. It's precision of terminology.

Should it start a flame war or cause division amongst practitioners of our hobby? No. Live and let live.

[Paul B Technic]

Does it really matter? Call it what you want and just enjoy it :)

[BrickG]

That being said, from a purely grammatical standpoint, it's a perfectly valid argument that pluralizing a brand name is incorrect. Just because people are able to say things, and do say them, does not make it correct. If you really want to get technical, that's the way it is. It's precision of terminology.

No, it's technically not. It's not a perfectly valid argument that pluralizing a brand name is incorrect. Why? Because there's no grammatical rule that says that cannot be done. Absolutely none.

This is the whole argument. It's about myths. There are facts within the English language. Not everything is up to interpretation and opinion. For example the definitions of words. "Orange" doesn't mean "blue". That's a fact.

Absolutely no English Teacher could mark off a point for saying "legos". And in NO English and American English textbook or grammar textbook is there a rule that says "pluralizing a brand name is incorrect." (speaking from this country only)

100% true. You can still have the opinion that you can't pluralize brand names however, you'd be factually wrong. It can be done and it's done often.

As for my tone, I don't have much of one in my head but this being text it's very easy to read things differently. I'm sorry if you think I"m screaming at you or something. :P

[prateek]

Just like sheep is not sheeps.

[BrickG]

Just like sheep is not sheeps.

Irrelevant as Lego does not control language. Vernacular is bigger than LEGO.

...

I fail to understand what is so hard to understand? My logic is literally flawless. Can someone present an argument against it that uses facts? Not the opinion of LEGO (who doesn't matter in a linguistic sense). Not a "it's just wrong". I want to see some rule of grammar that actually exists. Or something.

[Vindicare]

That right there is reason enough to write/type it LEGO. If you have respect for the company you would oblige, or maybe that's just me.

I wouldn't be a grammar nazi about it or anything, if someone who wasn't even into LEGO(or was new to the hobby and unaware of this) were to say legos, it wouldn't bother me. If they were the latter, I'd mention it to them though.

Didn't see BrickGs comment. It doesn't matter if it's grammatically wrong, in the rulebook sense, it matters because TLG themselves said that is what they're name is. Why question someone when they tell you, basically directly, and you just ignore it?

Edited January 27, 2013 by Legocrazy81

[CorneliusMurdock]

No, it's technically not. It's not a perfectly valid argument that pluralizing a brand name is incorrect. Why? Because there's no grammatical rule that says that cannot be done. Absolutely none.

Sorry, it technically is. A brand name is not the object it produces. That's a fact. Yes, colloquially, people pluralize brand names to refer to those objects all the time, but it is not technically correct.

As for your tone, reread your posts. Show others the respect that you yourself would like to be shown and we won't have a problem here.

[Vindicare]

I went and read your entire post now, and I have to say...you really wasted a lot of time and energy to type all this out. It definitely sounds like you're trying to start an argument. Why does it bother you that much that people want others to know the proper way to say the name? And don't say you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread.

[BrickG]

Sorry, it technically is. A brand name is not the object it produces. That's a fact. Yes, colloquially, people pluralize brand names to refer to those objects all the time, but it is not technically correct.

As for your tone, reread your posts. Show others the respect that you yourself would like to be shown and we won't have a problem here.

Brand names can and are currently being used to describe their products in the plural. It's both grammatically correct and proper. It IS technically correct because there is no grammatical rule stating that you can't do that. Absolutely none.

Brand names are proper nouns which can indeed be used in plural. However, I admit it's a bit messy at times. However the messiness is not technically incorrect, it's just messy. At most it could be compared to mess writing that a teacher might recommend to change so it's not as messy. But it's still technically fine (for the most part, proper noun pluralization gets complex).

For example...

"Look at all the USA Todays,"

Technically fine. It might be cleaned up to "Look at all the USA Today magazines,"

Then there are some that more familiar.

"I want to eat my Oreos" and "I want to eat my Oreo cookies" both sound correct and both sound clean (at least here). In fact, Oreo itself refers to their own cookies and brand name as one and the same.

Another example might be...

"I want to watch all the Star Treks"

Messy, but technically not incorrect. A lot of people would want it to be cleaned up to say something like "I want to watch all the Star Trek series" or whatever.

The point is... "legos" works. Messy or not, it works.

Proper Nouns YO!

Further more, while it may be unacceptable in some countries, it's become just so much of a staple in the USA that it's integrated itself into our local language (vernacular!). It's an acceptable form of speech. Not to a lot of core LEGO fans. But still.

Now, you might be thinking "but what if the brand name is a proper name?

This is where the vernacular really comes in. You can indeed still pluralize a proper noun that is a proper name if it's got a non-standard secondary application, a common noun. Lego has become like that here in the USA. The language has a mind of it's own and has taken over. I guess some people can argue that the 98% or whatever is wrong, but it's so integrated into the culture here it's irrelevant. It works. Legos works. Heck, "Microsofts" works technically (be it messy).

If it's not technically correct anywhere, I guess there could be more argument made for the local vernacular of other places as it relates to the proper name. But as I said in my first post, I'm really only talking about the USA and if the rules apply HERE. I can't speak for other countries.

[CorneliusMurdock]

I live in America as well. And I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to say it.

A lot of what happens in the common vernacular would make english professors tear their hair out in frustration. What you're saying is "messy" looks that way because it is incorrect. Your brain has been subtly trained to recognize that, whether you admit it or not.

I don't think you quite get the difference between literary and colloquial English. While you can say just about anything you want to in the vernacular, that doesn't mean it follows proper grammatical usage.

What it comes down to is that if it didn't make a difference in trademark law, TLG wouldn't be pushing the issue. So there's a difference.

[RodimusMike]

I apologize in advance but does it really matter what what us American's call them,even tho I have called them both Lego and Lego's at times it shouldn't matter which way you call them,just like in San Francisco California they call them electric trains that go up and down the street as trolley's but in England I am not sure what that term refers too,maybe the same too.So my point is what difference does it make what you call them? People automatically know what your talking about whether you call them Lego or Lego's.

As for the trademark issue then surely it shouldn't matter if one little letter like s could cause a multi billion dollar company to lose the rights just by adding an s.

[Vindicare]

I'm in the USA as well. Also, I don't say Oreos, Microsofts, or Nintendos, nor have I ever heard it said that way.

[Paul Boratko]

I am pretty hardcore into Lego as most everyone here is, and I know that when you refer to Lego in a plural form that you are supposed to say "Lego Bricks" or "Lego Elements", but in my opinion, there is nothing more pathetic then when you attend a Lego show and overhear someone publically bash and correct another person over the proper way to use the word "Lego" in it's proper plural form... I think I have heard someone do this at every show that I have ever attended...

This is really no different than attending a car show with your spouse/friend and saying to them "Wow can you believe how many Fords there are here?" And then some dork appears out of nowhere and says. "those are not Fords, they are Ford Cars, please use the word the right way"

Edited January 29, 2013 by Paul Boratko

[RaincloudDustbin]

Unfortunately, you cannot trust English. You can trust Maths and Science but in English, there are too many exceptions and contradictory rules plus Cornelius Murdock has already explained why you are wrong. Also, how can you say that the LEGO box is 'irrelevant'? How can it be when the discussion at hand is being overruled?! Please don't get in to the freedom of speech discussion... I think we can agree we've had enough stupid talk on that topic recently. Are you really going to take on most of EB on a pathetic and timeless argument which has already been officially answered? Finally, this is further pointless by the fact that you already said 'I don't use LEGOs on this forum but that's how it should be used'. If that was the case, there wouldn't be a problem. LEGO can't control you but it's their brand name so they can call it what they want to. If you started up a company and people called it by the wrong name, would you be happy? I think not.

[AndyC]

As somebody English, to me using the word "Legos" just sounds plain wrong. Whether it is or isn't grammatically correct isn't really the point though. Ultimately if you dilute the language to the point that legos is simply a term for plastic interlocking bricks, then you have no one but yourself to blame when the Lego you buy on eBay turns out to be nothing more than a pile of cheap knock-off product. That said, I kind of agree with Paul that there really isn't anything to be gained by pulling someone up on it.

[L@go]

Again, I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a significant difference between Legos and say, Toyotas or Cokes, other brand names that have been brought up in this thread? There is in my language. Anyone would call one singular item "a Toyota" or "a Coke". But would you call a singular LEGO item "a Lego?". Wouldn't that be "a Lego piece" or "a Lego brick"? You wouldn't say "a Toyota car" - unless it was to somebody who was completely unfamiliar with what a Toyota actually is...

When I grew up, we would refer to the addictive plastic as "the lego" or "my lego". We would probably not capitalise the first letter, and certainly not all of them. But we would not call them "legos" either - it sounds strange to me, and it was a term I'd never heard about before I joined this site.

[Rufus]

As for the trademark issue then surely it shouldn't matter if one little letter like s could cause a multi billion dollar company to lose the rights just by adding an s.

The trademark issue revolves around referring to the bricks themselves as 'lego' or 'legos'. If the word enters 'official' common usage to refer to plastic construction bricks, then any clone brand could in theory print the word 'LEGO' on their bricks, and that usage would then be defensible in court. The result would be increasing difficulty for the LEGO Group to compete, a loss of quality of parts and of sets, and a flood of 'fake' parts rendering sources such as Bricklink near-useless.

It is little different from the reason EB does not post 'confidential' pictures of new sets. I was fortunate recently to visit a little room in Billund full of cheap bootleg copies of official sets, some of which had clearly stolen the official LEGO box art. The result is angry customers contacting TLG to complain about the poor quality of the set, or, worse still, posting their complaints online for all to see, without ever realising that the set wasn't produced by the LEGO Co.

It's a 'doomsday' scenario, perhaps, but one which I for one don't wish to encourage.

Incidentally, the dictionary definition of LEGO is:

'[mass noun] trademark

a construction toy consisting of interlocking plastic building blocks'

Where 'mass noun' is '... a noun that names something that cannot be counted' - examples according to this particular source are pasta, air, and motherhood.

So, I'm afraid, to say 'LEGOs' is grammatically incorrect. I personally won't go around correcting people (except where EB endorsement is implied, such as in the Reviewers Academy), but I do my very best to help protect the LEGO trademark in my own work.

[def]

Unfortunately, you cannot trust English. You can trust Maths and Science but in English, there are too many exceptions and contradictory rules plus Cornelius Murdock has already explained why you are wrong. Also, how can you say that the LEGO box is 'irrelevant'? How can it be when the discussion at hand is being overruled?! Please don't get in to the freedom of speech discussion... I think we can agree we've had enough stupid talk on that topic recently. Are you really going to take on most of EB on a pathetic and timeless argument which has already been officially answered? Finally, this is further pointless by the fact that you already said 'I don't use LEGOs on this forum but that's how it should be used'. If that was the case, there wouldn't be a problem. LEGO can't control you but it's their brand name so they can call it what they want to. If you started up a company and people called it by the wrong name, would you be happy? I think not.

I usually say LEGO, but if a person in real life talked like this to me, I would go out of my way to say legos. Legos, legos, legos. I love legos.

[Brickington]

Who cares what you call them? TLG wants us to call it LEGO bricks, and since their the ones who make me awesome sets and bricks, I'll do them a favor a call them LEGO bricks.

[LEGO Historian]

The earliest known American LEGO commercial (1961-62) was made within a year of its' introduction... (all the LEGO parts were made of Cellulose Acetate back before 1963)...

Ignore the date... they were notified, but somehow failed to correct their error... hmmmm?

Edited January 27, 2013 by LEGO Historian

[Palathadric]

Really, it's not worth writing an 1,000 word argument to attempt to convince us why "LEGO" can be referred to as "Legos." If you want to call it "Legos" go ahead and do so, we won't and can't force anyone to say "LEGO", but what's the point in trying to convince us that "Legos" is right, when clearly it's not? Your argument sounds like it's coming from a guilty conscience.

[Shadows]

I call mine Betty.

• Planning to build? "Got a date with Betty."
  
• Going to buy some? "Going shopping for Betty."
  
• Think they're overpriced? "That Betty sure is getting expensive."
  
• A big fan? "I really love Betty."
  

Seems perfectly reasonable and it never requires choosing a plural or singular form, it's just Betty, and she's built like a stack of bricks.