Lego or Legos?

[Lordofdragonss]

I post this because I see many people have problems with "Legos" and it really hurt my eyes, (and I think not only mine).

Yes, the plural from Lego is... Lego!

Edited October 2, 2012 by Fugazi
changed sub-title

[BrickBob Studpants]

Yes, the plural from Lego is... Lego!

Thanks a lot, that's the proof we've been waiting for! Like you I can't stand people saying "LEGOsssss", you can't transform every word into its plural form just by adding an "s" And brand names are a special case at that, "Pokémonssss" is another example of the "s-adding-horridness" as I like to call it

[AussieJimbo]

Me three.

The plural of LEGO is LEGO.

They should put that word with an 's' at the end in this site's profanity filter.

:classic:

"s-adding-horridness"

Apt term.

:classic:

Edited January 13, 2011 by AussieJimbo

[Runamuck]

It's funny how my brother and I talked about this yesterday.

It's a thing that is limited to English. In Danish you would almost never refer to LEGO in that fashion, mostly because it sounds really stupid. You always refer to it as LEGO bricks or LEGO blocks.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Runamuck

[richthelegodude]

Finally Lego have confirmed what I have always said. I really dislike it being called "Legos" .

It is Lego or Lego Bricks/blocks/pieces.

[davee123]

Thanks a lot, that's the proof we've been waiting for!

Finally Lego have confirmed

I dunno about this whole "waiting" thing or "finally" thing-- LEGO used to publish a very similar disclaimer on the back of their catalogs in the 1980's. Here's one example from 1985 (lower-right-hand corner):

http://peeron.com/catalogs/1985/medium/23/?id=190

The plural of LEGO is LEGO.

Well, that's kinda iffy. If it were up to the lawyers, LEGO would be an adjective, not a noun. You'd call the company "the LEGO Company", or "the LEGO Group", or "InterLEGO AG", or what-have-you. And you'd call the bricks that they make "LEGO bricks" or "LEGO toys" or "LEGO elements" or "LEGO pieces".

But none of us fans want to add in an extra word-- that sounds overly lawyerly to us. So as a compromise, many LEGO fans just say "LEGO" as the plural, rather than "LEGOS", thus avoiding the dreaded "LEGOS" that we've always been taught from a young age was wrong.

DaveE

Edited January 13, 2011 by davee123

[vexorian]

LEGO has no plural. The way you call a LEGO set is ... LEGO set and the plural of which is "LEGO sets". Then we have LEGO bricks.

[Hinckley]

I post this because I see many people have problems with "Legos" and it really hurt my eyes, (and I think not only mine).

Yes, the plural from Lego is... Lego!

Note that they also spell it LEGO with all caps.

[Omicron]

It is great the company points it out for those are are unaware.

All in all, I'm not anal about it. I have enough things in life to worry about and Legos isn't one of them.

-Omi

[UKver2.0]

Growing up, my family always called LEGO toys "legos" as if an interlocking plastic building block was a "lego" and more than one would be "legos" (we didn't have the online communities to tell us we were wrong). Had I heard someone say to their child, "Go play with your LEGO," I would have felt really bad that they had only one. I was just that kind of kid -- guilty for what I had, but so unwilling to share my "legos".

Now that I'm older I can see the problem. If you tell someone to pick up some Kleenex or a Coke at the store, they may return with a different brand facial tissue and a different brand name cola. LEGO would rather not have the same thing happen to its building blocks. I get that and I'm sure my children would be disappointed if I were to buy them Mega B!#cks when they ask for LEGO.

And I also understand that this is going to be different from country to country, region to region, family to family. In the US, the cola example seems to work better in the south. In the first few months after moving north, my wife would get annoyed when she would ask for a "Coke" and someone would answer, "I'm sorry, we only carry Pepsi products."

But I don't think I'll ever be able to make LEGO sound right in my mind -- old dogs and all that.

Still, I'm very careful when talking to my children about LEGO toys. They know what's right. I may be a lost cause, but I won't raise backward children. And I have eurobricks.com and AMC's Mad Men to thank for that. Cheers all.

[Follows Closely]

Finally Lego have confirmed what I have always said. I really dislike it being called "Legos" .

It is Lego or Lego Bricks/blocks/pieces.

Finally? I have seen this label on catalogs from the early 80s.

[richthelegodude]

I was not around in the early 80's . Not too sure if it was on the old "service" sheets I had as a kid, I never really read them to be honest .

[fred67]

Lego or Legos?

Neither, it's "LEGO." Period. Case closed. If you're going to be all anal retentive about it, there is no "Legos," there is no "Lego," there's just "LEGO."

My suggestion, though, is to not be all anal retentive about it.

[richthelegodude]

I suggest we stop talking about it, and start building with it.

[Brickdoctor]

I'm actually not so certain. While I always say 'LEGO', as in 'LEGO is fun', then that's using the singular form (and there's no doubt that the singular is LEGO) But then we never say either 'LEGO are fun' or 'LEGOs are fun'. Nobody uses the former and only non-FOLs use the latter. The only time we ever use the plural verb 'are' with any form of the noun 'LEGO' is with another word such as 'LEGO sets are fun' or 'LEGO bricks are fun', but then that word (bricks, sets, etc.) becomes the plural noun that agrees with the plural verb and LEGO now becomes an adjective describing the plural noun, and it is no longer the noun itself.

So essentially, the plural of the word 'LEGO' is 'LEGO', but it as a noun is only used in the plural form as 'LEGOs' by someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about; and we the true FOLs use it as an adjective to a different plural noun. LEGO has a plural form, but the proper form of it is never used.

[Henchmen4Hire]

For the record, "legos" sounds really stupid in English too.

I'm not going to stop using "LEGOs" though, people know what's meant when it's said, and it's not like the word is being butchered (is "LEGO" even a word?).

If it becomes illegal to use "legos", I'll still be saying it. If saying it comes with a hefty fine, then I'll gladly use "lego" again. xD

Also, that's funny that we can use anal but not a-s-s

Edited January 13, 2011 by DrNightmare

[CP5670]

I use "Lego" as a singular noun, referring to the Lego system as a whole. "Lego bricks" is too wordy and "LEGO" looks odd, as if it's an acronym for something. Most people I meet who aren't AFOLs say "Legos."

At the end of the day, who cares? It's all referring to the same thing. TLG might get uptight over it, but I certainly don't.

[Rufus]

Whilst I agree that 'LEGOs' is highly distateful, I'm somewhat surprised that the company should be so worried about this. What the disclaimer is saying in effect is that LEGO bricks shouldn't be referred to simply as 'LEGO' or 'LEGOs'. Why this should hurt the brand is a mystery to me; I can't see it's any different to Tannoy or Hoover (or Kleenex or Coke), and I don't see those guys complaining. Perhaps someone in marketing knows different

Now to be anal: LEGO, if used to refer to bricks, the Company, or the Group is a collective noun. As such it ought to be followed by a singular verb: 'My LEGO is dusty'; 'LEGO is trying to promote its brand image', et cetera. Though I can't say I'm always 100% accurate in following those rules myself

[Jaymercury]

From what I understand, if you misuse it, it becomes untrademarkable, or something like that. Much like photoshop has become a word that sometimes doesn't even refer to photoshop.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Jaymercury

[AlexPL]

In Polish plural form of LEGO just doesn't exist. However just after leaving Dark Ages i spent some time browsing Ebay. And "Legos" were quite popular there so I picked this form from there. And now I just can't help it: everytime when I think of LEGO my mind says "Legos" it just seems natural to me . But for me Legos = LEGO and LEGO only, not same clone brans like Megablocks or Cobi.

Edited January 13, 2011 by AlexPL

[davee123]

From what I understand, if you misuse it, it becomes untrademarkable, or something like that.

Yep. "Xerox" was one of the big ones. In the 1980's, "Xerox" became the verb for "making a paper image copy". So, rather than saying "Can you photocopy this for me?" people would say "Can you xerox this for me?". Xerox was in danger of losing their trademark (in the USA) because it was entering too much into common use. Similar with "Google" or "Photoshop".

I don't think LEGO's in too much danger of losing their trademark at this point, even if you went around saying "LEGOs". But regardless, LEGO's legal team is still aware of the potential issue.

The bigger issue was really in the late 1990's and early 2000's. LEGO is known for its plastic building brick product, but that product doesn't actually have a NAME per se. It's not like "Nabisco Oreo Cookies", where "Oreos" are the product name, and "Nabisco" is the company. If LEGO had named their "construction brick products" something like "Mursten", they'd be in less danger from losing the "LEGO" brand, although probably in just as much danger of losing "Mursten". Anyway, in the 1990's and 2000's, LEGO started trying to branch out into things like children's clothes and such, meaning that for the first time since 1960, they weren't focused on their singular "construction brick" product-- so the entire brand would've been at risk.

DaveE

[Omicron]

If you tell someone to pick up some Kleenex or a Coke at the store, they may return with a different brand facial tissue and a different brand name cola.

Actually the term coke is pretty universal and can refer to any soft drink, including Coca-Cola (the actual brand name) and Pepsi.

-Omi

[Brickdoctor]

From what I understand, if you misuse it, it becomes untrademarkable, or something like that. Much like photoshop has become a word that sometimes doesn't even refer to photoshop.

Correct, if you look it up on Wikipedia, it'll say 'trademarked in capitals as LEGO'. Personally, I don't think the word is in danger of becoming a common word like twittering or photoshopping, because it has no verb form that sounds good. We say building, constructing, playing, etc., but never 'Legoing'.

[Dazmundo]

It's a thing that is limited to English.

I have to say, from my experience it is more limited to 'American' rather than English.

I had never heard/seen LEGOs except from Americans, it makes me cringe to read it, IT'S LEGO!!

D

[fred67]

Actually the term coke is pretty universal and can refer to any soft drink, including Coca-Cola (the actual brand name) and Pepsi.

-Omi

Only if you're from the south. If you ask for coke up north (assuming you're not talking to a drug dealer) you will get Coca Cola, you will not be asked "what kind?"