Lego or Legos?

[Delta 38]

Hmm, interesting points on grammar.

I've never called them "Legos" intentionally. It's one of those things I'm seriously annoyed by. Even if it sounds pedantic, I will always add something (e.g. Lego sets) after that.

Regarding some of the earlier arguments, e.g. tins and Google...

Tins are "correct", though more in a slang sense. Not all cans are made of tin, and not all tin containers are cans, but they're often referred to as one or the other.

As for Google being used as a verb, that's also somewhat correct. "Google" can't really be made into a verb otherwise, though again, just because someone "Googles" something, it doesn't mean they used Google to do so.

I agree with the use of "Lego" over "Legos" due to it being a company title, rather than the name of the product.

I found out recently that Cellophane is actually a registered trademark. Like many others, I assumed it was the name of the actual product due to the name becoming genericised and used everywhere.

There's a similar problem with things like Spam (the food), Thermos flasks, Band-Aids and Aspirin.

Lego is one of the things that really shouldn't be genericised (though it is, to an extent). We've got enough bootlegs as it is.

On another note, I think the use of "Legos" sounds a bit... ignorant, especially when used in the media.

Edit: did a quick bit of research, some of the above-mentioned brands are only trademarked in particular countries. The point still stands though, we wouldn't want Lego to become legally generic.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Delta 38

[______]

I also get really anal over capitalising "LEGO". It's LEGO, not "Lego" or "Legos".

I often correct people who say "legos"! I believe TLC also said how to correct "LEGO" in one of their old catalogues, God knows where the source is for that though.

[AndyC]

Strictly speaking, TLG would prefer you to use the term "LEGO Bricks" as opposed to either "LEGOs" or even just "LEGO", as it helps to keep the trademark seperate from the item itself and theoretically therefore keeps their claim on it stronger.

In a world in which Hoover is used as a generic term for a vacuum cleaner, Google a common term to search the Internet and all seemingly without any threat of diluting the respective Trademarks, I'm not sure it's really that big an issue anymore. The world has become too protective of corporate rights to allow such things these days.

[purpleparadox]

Personally, I just call them "Lego", and I can't stand hearing "Legos".

In a world in which Hoover is used as a generic term for a vacuum cleaner, Google a common term to search the Internet and all seemingly without any threat of diluting the respective Trademarks, I'm not sure it's really that big an issue anymore. The world has become too protective of corporate rights to allow such things these days.

To add to your list, all sorts of airtight containers are referred to as Tupperwares.

[LEGO Historian]

I just read thru the topic for the first time and hearing "Legos" (or worse... seeing "Legoes") is like fingernails on a chalk board for most FOLs...

But part of this is due to the fact that this is a Danish product... and this is a well guarded secret outside of Scandinavia... but the Danish language is falling apart!!

And this manifests itself in LEGO (or should that be its' self?)

Anyway... here's the Norwegian take on the troubles of Danish.....

[Vindicare]

I also get really anal over capitalising "LEGO". It's LEGO, not "Lego" or "Legos".

I often correct people who say "legos"! I believe TLC also said how to correct "LEGO" in one of their old catalogues, God knows where the source is for that though.

That's me right there. 99% of the time I say LEGO. Occasionally I'll throw out a TLC/G. Whenever I talk about LEGO, I say it as such. I don't think I'd have an issue with someone saying it any other way though. People are too concerned with being "PC" these days...

[Delta 38]

I also get really anal over capitalising "LEGO". It's LEGO, not "Lego" or "Legos".

Many times, I've seen company names or titles capitalised because their logo is. That's fine, but personally I prefer not capitalising Lego because people might mistake it for an acronym.

I understand the logic, but it could be confusing.

If it helps, at least I use "Lego" (by itself) solely to refer to the company.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Delta 38

[______]

Many times, I've seen company names or titles capitalised because their logo is. That's fine, but personally I prefer not capitalising Lego because people might mistake it for an acronym.

I understand the logic, but it could be confusing.

If it helps, at least I use "Lego" (by itself) solely to refer to the company.

I also noticed in my local WHsmith that the letter they leave that says the LEGO promotional offer is no longer available for that day uses "LEGO" in capital letters. This probably means that TLC asked the Sun newspaper to write it as "LEGO" as well.

But I can see how you could find it confusing.

[lightningtiger]

It seems an American thing "Legos", I don't know why ?

Also true the use of Lego, should be in a way all capitals I guess.

But, (I now poor grammar starting with a but) we use the terms DVD, TV, VCR, PC, etc., the same way as a single term just like with Lego I'm I not correct on that point ?

Just like saying I'm watching a DVD and playing with Lego.

Does it really matter....I guess to some it does. I always remember one thing from Star Wars, 'From a Certain Point of View' and I guess it applies here.

[Sam892]

I've always used LEGO instead of LEGO's. It most likely because my older sister and dad said it like that. It bugs me a bit when people add the 's' at the end but it's forgivable.

[Vindicare]

It seems an American thing "Legos", I don't know why ?

Also true the use of Lego, should be in a way all capitals I guess.

But, (I now poor grammar starting with a but) we use the terms DVD, TV, VCR, PC, etc., the same way as a single term just like with Lego I'm I not correct on that point ?

Just like saying I'm watching a DVD and playing with Lego.

Does it really matter....I guess to some it does. I always remember one thing from Star Wars, 'From a Certain Point of View' and I guess it applies here.

Well, not quite the same for those. VCR and DVD are acronyms. Then TV and PC are abbreviations, or shorthand...maybe?

[JackJonespaw]

I say Legos, even though a Lego worker told me that the politically correct term is Lego blocks, using Lego as an adjective unless referring to the company. I still don't use it as an adjective, though.

[gotoAndLego]

I use Lego, Legos and LEGO interchangeably, although i mostly use Lego, and to be honest I'm amused when it gets OCDFOLS bent out of shape. If I know I'm around one of them I might purposely say Legos.

Edited May 24, 2012 by gotoAndLego

[General Magma]

It's "LEGO" - case should've been closed on that already..

But more importantly, who actually cares? We all get what's meant by both terms, right? There are far bigger things to worry about.

~ General Magma

[Niku]

I use Lego, capitalized LEGO as correct it is, I don´t really like how it reads with the normal text, it is too noticiable. Well that is just me.

I have learned some grammar with this thread too.

[TheLegoDr]

To add to the list, Kleenex is a brand name that is used for all facial tissues. Do people really want to say adhesive bandages instead of Band-Aid? That is just good free advertising for a company if they are so well known to the point that everything other than them is called the same thing. Yes, it does get to the point when an inferior product comes along such as MB gets associated with the Lego brand, but if people don't like a product they should look to the name of what they do not like. I have purchased generic things before and been quite pleased with them over the brand name. I'm sure the same could be said for any other product in existence. Lego isn't available everywhere, so I'm sure plenty of people get along just fine with some other brand. It being superior or inferior doesn't matter to them since that is what they have.

As far as the discussion, I call them legos. Always have ever since I was 5. I was the only kid I knew growing up that played with them so it never mattered to me what they were called. I find it rather amusing that so many people get upset about the proper pluralization of a toy. I realize proper grammar is necessary in the world, but Lego vs lego vs LEGO vs Lego bricks/blocks vs legos is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Just enjoy the product and move on. I almost wish I would have put TheLegosDr as my name when I first signed on just to upset people. I much prefer the one I have right now since it is shorter to type though.

If the actual company wants to get upset at me for using it that way, then I can spend my money on other less frivolous things.

[Lyichir]

I only use "Legos" when I'm trying for irony. Normally I use just LEGO. LEGO vs. LEGO bricks or LEGO products is a less important differentiation to me, since "bricks" or "parts" suggests only individual parts, as opposed to MOCs and sets (and to non-AFOLs, "bricks" suggests only basic bricks), and "products" suggests complete sets, as opposed to miscellaneous parts. So while I use these more specific terms when they're called for, most of the time it's just "my collection of LEGO".

Also, I rarely-if-ever correct others on the usage of these terms, especially non-FOLs. Coming from a newspaper family, and growing up with an acute understanding of grammar and diction, I've learned that correcting others on their every minor mistake makes you sound like a smartass. If I see "Legos" in a professional work like a newspaper it still makes me cringe, but if others use those sorts of terms casually I typically just ignore it.

[andyscouse]

Lego. Plain & simple.

I only came across the "s" version when I moved to America ... seems prolific here, but I keep on with the education when I can ...

[RaincloudDustbin]

In the Lego shop the other day, one of the workers asked me "are those your LEGOs?" Some advice for those who can't break the habit: The isn't a LEGOs, there never was a LEGOs and there never will be a LEGOs. OK?

[tedbeard]

From:Fair Play on LEGO.com:

If the LEGO trademark is used...it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs".

[Hinckley]

It should also always be all-caps. For example, LEGO bricks.

[ShaydDeGrai]

In reading over this thread (in its entirety - oy ) I've noticed that a lot of people are mistaking the rules of grammar with the intellectual property law and while one has bearing on the other, they serve two different purposes and at times can be orthogonal, and in some cases in direct opposition. I don't claim to be an expert by any means but I have taken few courses in both IP law and Linguistics for what its worth.

First, language is a living thing; the purpose of language is to convey a common idea with minimal ambiguity to a diverse audience and despite the best efforts of scholars and educators to define and enforce the rules, language always evolves by mutual consensus; spelling changes, rules of grammar drift, adjectives become nouns, nouns become verbs, etc. Acronyms were almost non-existent in English prior to WWII and now they everywhere and some of the older ones (like SCUBA - self-contained-underwater-breathing-apparatus) is no longer formally considered an acronym is now just an adjective (same for LASER and dozens of other terms where the term became popular with people who didn't know the specifics of what it _really_ meant) People try to find the easiest way to convey information quickly. Xerox became a verb and a generic noun because "photocopy" and "photographic reproduction" had too many syllables and xerox was just too easy to say in its place (even if it is technically a "misuse" of a proper name as a part of speech). The same is true for Q-tips (who _wants_ to say "antiseptic cotton swap" when you can just say Q-Tip) Band-Aids, and dozens of other proper names that have, by mutual consensus been impressed into the public domain (at the expense of the original trademark holders).

As far as IP law is concerned, you can't technically trademark a word. You can trademark a catch phrase or slogan, but when it comes to words it gets hairier. You CAN trademark an ideogram (which can be made up of letters and is effectively a picture of a word) but the ideogram is considered atomic; a graphical symbol to convey an idea that can serve as a placeholder for something there isn't a word for in normal grammar (at least in English, in Chinese, for example, everything is an ideogram and you don't have what the west would consider a 'normal' phonetic alphabet) When you file for a trademark of an ideogram you need to say as what part of speech the symbol can be used. In the case of TLG, as far as I know, they hold a trademark on 'lego' written in all capital letters when used as an adjective, and in this context it should technically be followed by the Registered trademark superscript.

The life of a trademark is different from that a copyright or patent in that if the brand looses its uniqueness in the mind of the masses and l-e-g-o becomes a generic adjective, or evolves into a different part of speech (as is the case when you use it as a noun and add an 's') this undermines TLG's legal standing to defend its IP. Companies like Megablocks or Hasbro would (arguably) be able to say something like "fully compatible with legos from other manufactures" because (although everyone here knows that LEGO bricks only come from TLG) if the word evolves into a generic, TLG becomes like Johnson&Johnson and "Q-Tips" and would have to decided to either surrender control over the use of the term or become mired in lawsuits that are no longer the cut-and-dry clear violations they would have been years ago when LEGO meant exactly one thing to everyone who used the term.

In short, TLG wants to defend its trademarks and delay the natural evolution of language with respect to "their" ideogram as long as possible (and this is a perfectly reasonable things for them to do, I have no problem with it). Every capitalized, registered trademark use of it as an adjective supports their legal standing; every mixed case or lower case use as a 'normal' English word undermines it. Legally (as opposed to what a wiki or a dictionary might print) LEGO is not a word, it's an icon that happens to include letters and therefore cannot be pluralized by adding an 'S' any more than I can refer to extra happy faces by saying " s"

[SheepEater]

"This Lego set, made by LEGO, contains 736 legos."

[wokajablocka]

I dose Tick me of when people say Legos. I have always called them Lego LEGO. I need to now remember to spell it in all capitals.

[Scorpiox]

I have never in my life, nor do I plan to, ever use the word 'Legos'. It is just wrong, the brand is LEGO, thus we should call it LEGO, and calling the bricks 'Legos' is incorrect. Honestly, it is similar to calling the plural of that quaint woolly animal 'Sheeps', or a multitude of that curious aquatic creature 'Fishes', which I would hope that everyone has stopped doing since they were four years old.

Bowie...On!