Lego?
LFS
"Where the group work is formally ‘legoised’ , the components produced
by each student should be assessed individually (as well as the entire
product if appropriate)."
There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
component parts".
Until reading this, I had never really considered my students' work as a
"product". A ghastly new world of costs and valuations opens up before me...
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Paul Wolff
from Messrs No Names, No Packdrill. BICBW.
--
Paul
James Silverton
I'd never seen "legoized" before but it wouldn't it also need to imply
"easily and quickly combined". I loved my Meccano (Erector) set as a
child but my kids much preferred buliding sets that snapped together,
like Legoes. Not that I despised Lego sets as a child; my most
well-remembered case of covetousness occurred when the boy next door
displayed the set that his uncle had liberated in Germany.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
A component produced by a student should undergo a formal valuation. The
student should then be paid in accordance with the valuation.
That should encourage the students to work harder and more thoughtfully.
Major Risk: plagiarism.
I apologise for writing this post in standard English, but I claim a
littel credit for avoiding the b***s word.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Pah! Lego is modern plastic stuff!
Hurrah for Minibrix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minibrix
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=108980
R H Draney
It's disappointing to see a new bunch of bureaucrats make up new words that
aren't needed, when we were lincolnlogging and tinkertoying decades before they
were born....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Per Rønne
> the boy next door displayed the set that his uncle had liberated in
> Germany.
'Liberated' ? I guess in 1945 ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> the boy next door displayed the set that his uncle had liberated in
>> Germany.
>
>'Liberated' ? I guess in 1945 ...
Or later.
OED:
liberate, v.
c. To loot (property), to misappropriate. slang.
1944 Daily Express 7 Oct. 4/3 (caption) Excuse me, Canon, but I
rather think you've liberated my matches.
....
1965 G. MELLY Owning-Up vi. 59 He..wore a sombrero liberated, I
suspect, from the wardrobe of some Latin American group he had
worked with in the past.
....
1974 S. E. MORISON European Discovery of America: Southern Voyages
viii. 164 Drake's flagship Golden Hind carried no bell, but his men
‘liberated’ one from the church of Guatulco, Mexico, in 1579.
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
I've still got mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayko
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Oh my goodness. That has a link to:
http://levyboy.com/stockport_road_the_shops.htm
This page is dedicated to the Stockport Road area of Levenshulme,
and the shops that existed in the 50's & 60's.
I knew the area slightly during the 1960s.
Nostalgic.
the Omrud
> Oh my goodness. That has a link to:
> http://levyboy.com/stockport_road_the_shops.htm
>
> This page is dedicated to the Stockport Road area of Levenshulme,
> and the shops that existed in the 50's & 60's.
>
> I knew the area slightly during the 1960s.
>
> Nostalgic.
I occasionally drive up Stockport Road when I go to the Micro Direct
warehouse, which is opposite the biscuit factory.
I like the Jag in the picture of the Tri-ang railway, which is so very
much like my modern S-Type. There is more difference visible from front
or rear than from the side.
--
David
James Silverton
> Or later.
> OED:
> liberate, v.
1945 exactly! There is some argument about the date at which Legos
appeared in other countries than Denmark but my friend's uncle was a
soldier in Germany. I may be slandering him since it's just possible he
actually bought them.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> 1945 exactly! There is some argument about the date at which Legos
> appeared in other countries than Denmark but my friend's uncle was a
> soldier in Germany. I may be slandering him since it's just possible
> he actually bought them.
Data point which we've mentioned here before: AmE treats "Lego" as
countable, while OurE has to circumlocute with "a piece of Lego" or
"some Lego".
I don't think I'd seen Lego till after about '56.
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>There is some argument about the date at which Legos
>appeared
ObAUE: In BrE we don't use the plural Legos, just Lego, AFAIK.
<desperately avoiding "never" and "always">
Mark Brader
>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>
>> "Where the group work is formally 'legoised' , the components
>> produced by each student should be assessed individually (as well as
>> the entire product if appropriate)."
>>
>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
>> component parts".
So then "*formally* legoized" would mean "formally formally subdivided
into component parts". *Hmm*!
Paul Wolff:
> I foresee a polite and helpful, yet firm, guidance note winging its way
From the trademark lawyers of the Lego Group?
> from Messrs No Names, No Packdrill. BICBW.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to me mean, except for the acronym.
--
Mark Brader | "[Your orders are] to figure out what I would have ordered
m...@vex.net | you to do, if I really understood the situation ... [and]
Toronto | to follow those orders I hypothetically would have given."
-- Shan (John Barnes, "Earth Made of Glass")
R H Draney
>
>Laura Spira:
>>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>>
>>> "Where the group work is formally 'legoised' , the components
>>> produced by each student should be assessed individually (as well as
>>> the entire product if appropriate)."
>>>
>>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
>>> component parts".
>
>So then "*formally* legoized" would mean "formally formally subdivided
>into component parts". *Hmm*!
"Shape up, blockheads!" Tom said formally....r
Nick
I did wonder if UK fans and extreme Lego people used the term, but
looking at a site I know of, the word used to refer to any individual
item is "bricks": http://www.andrewlipson.com/escher/ascending.html
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Paul Wolff
>Laura Spira:
>>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>>
>>> "Where the group work is formally 'legoised' , the components
>>> produced by each student should be assessed individually (as well as
>>> the entire product if appropriate)."
>>>
>>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
>>> component parts".
>
>So then "*formally* legoized" would mean "formally formally subdivided
>into component parts". *Hmm*!
>
>Paul Wolff:
>> I foresee a polite and helpful, yet firm, guidance note winging its way
>
>From the trademark lawyers of the Lego Group?
>
>> from Messrs No Names, No Packdrill. BICBW.
>
>I'm not sure what that's supposed to me mean, except for the acronym.
the firm here.
--
Paul
Adrian Bailey
news:70o0lmF...@mid.individual.net...
> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>
> "Where the group work is formally ‘legoised’ , the components produced by
> each student should be assessed individually (as well as the entire
> product if appropriate)."
>
> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
> component parts".
I would take legoised to mean the opposite, i.e. put together, rather than
taken apart. I wonder who came up with this term? And is there consensus on
its meaning? It gets fewer than 100 ghits so it must be recent. I suggest
that it be ditched before it spreads yet more confusion.
Adrian
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:29:49 +0000:
I was racking my brains trying to remember that name. I had it too, I
wish I still did.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Laura Spira:
>>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>>
>>> "Where the group work is formally 'legoised' , the components
>>> produced by each student should be assessed individually (as well as
>>> the entire product if appropriate)."
>>>
>>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
>>> component parts".
>
>So then "*formally* legoized" would mean "formally formally subdivided
>into component parts". *Hmm*!
>
>Paul Wolff:
>> I foresee a polite and helpful, yet firm, guidance note winging its way
>
>From the trademark lawyers of the Lego Group?
>
>> from Messrs No Names, No Packdrill. BICBW.
>
>I'm not sure what that's supposed to me mean, except for the acronym.
"No names, no packdrill" is a military saying.
"Packdrill" is a form of punishment. The malefactor is forced to march
wearing a heavy backpack.
"No names, no packdrill" will be said by a person in charge (typically
an NCO) to a group of people among whom is one or more wrong doers. It
is a warning to the wrongdoers that the person I/C is aware of the
wrongdoing and knows those responsible but will not take action against
them on this occasion.
OED:
pack-drill n. Mil. a form of drill used as a punishment and
involving marching in full uniform carrying a heavy pack (no names,
no pack-drill: see no names, no pack drill at NAME n. and adj.
Phrases 20).
name n.
P20. colloq. (orig. Army slang). no names, no pack drill: used
proverbially or parenthetically to indicate that the person or
persons guilty of a misdemeanour will not be named, in order to
spare them recrimination. Now usu. humorous in more general use.
1923 O. ONIONS Peace in our Time I. ii. 25 Men had a way of omitting
the names of those of whom they spoke; no names no pack-drill.
1926 E. WALLACE More Educated Evans vii. 160 There's a certain
party{em}no names no pack-drill{em}who's fairly doggin' me to get
information.
1931 P. MACDONALD Crime Conductor I. i. 7 ‘Meaning?’ said
Cuthbertson. ‘No names,’ said Garth Johnson quickly, ‘no pack
drill!’
1955 M. ALLINGHAM Beckoning Lady ii. 32 It just means no name, no
pack drill, and always speak well of them as has money to sue.
1962 ‘B. GRAEME’ Undetective iii. 32 ‘It's a lie, mister. Who told
you?’ ‘No names, no pack drill.’
1990 D. LUCIE Fashion (1991) 265 There was a guy..being told by an
Oxbridge twit, no names no pack drill,..that he was a morally
bankrupt, senseless philistine.
Chuck Riggs
Any number of Real American Men© began their engineering or
construction careers with Erector Sets.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Nursery school --> Tinker Toys --> Lincoln Logs --> Erector Set -->
more schooling -- > engineering degree, in my case.
Chuck Riggs
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:46:10 -0500, "James Silverton"
><not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>There is some argument about the date at which Legos
>>appeared
>
>ObAUE: In BrE we don't use the plural Legos, just Lego, AFAIK.
>
><desperately avoiding "never" and "always">
Well, I never.
LFS
> "LFS" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:70o0lmF...@mid.individual.net...
>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>
>> "Where the group work is formally ‘legoised’ , the components produced
>> by each student should be assessed individually (as well as the entire
>> product if appropriate)."
>>
>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
>> component parts".
>
> I would take legoised to mean the opposite, i.e. put together, rather
> than taken apart.
Exactly.
I wonder who came up with this term?
I suspect the author of the document, our professor of learning and
teaching.
And is there
> consensus on its meaning?
Among the readers of the document with whom I have spoken, it appears not.
It gets fewer than 100 ghits so it must be
> recent. I suggest that it be ditched before it spreads yet more confusion.
>
I wish. <sigh>
Sara Lorimer
> ObAUE: In BrE we don't use the plural Legos, just Lego, AFAIK.
>
> <desperately avoiding "never" and "always">
Same in AmE, in my experience. I was at Legoland just last week (or
rather, a Legoland) and meant to check the signs to see if they had a
policy, but I was too excited. I mean, my kids were too excited.
--
SML
James Silverton
> Exactly.
I don't like the sound or use of the word but I got 4 million hits for
"legoize" and about half a million for "legoise". The rot has set in.
James Hogg
<da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"LFS" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:70o0lmF...@mid.individual.net...
>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>
>> "Where the group work is formally 'legoised', the components produced by
>> each student should be assessed individually (as well as the entire
>> product if appropriate)."
>>
>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided into
>> component parts".
>
>I would take legoised to mean the opposite, i.e. put together, rather than
>taken apart.
Most parents would say that "legoised" means either put together
in very strange combinations or scattered all over the place,
with some pieces that can only be found by walking barefoot in
the dark.
In a university context, however, it probably means that the
students work together at a low table like this:
http://213.132.112.100/images/69/6965544736.jpg
>I wonder who came up with this term? And is there consensus on
>its meaning? It gets fewer than 100 ghits so it must be recent. I suggest
>that it be ditched before it spreads yet more confusion.
This is a case where you really wish that lexicographers could
give words the chop.
James
Adrian Bailey
news:go9056$vgf$1...@news.motzarella.org...
The rot has set in at Google. Those hit-counts are spurious.
Adrian
James Hogg
Some of them refer to a flower variety known as "belle legoise"
and at least one is a reference to "Son Excellence Mgr Legoize".
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I understand. Your kids were excited about Legoland, and you were
excited about your kids excitement. <wink>
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Being lexicographers they would need to maintain list of the words that
have been chopised (also chopized).
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> ObAUE: In BrE we don't use the plural Legos, just Lego, AFAIK.
>>
>> <desperately avoiding "never" and "always">
>
> Same in AmE, in my experience.
In my experience, it's generational or regional. We always played
with "lego". My son and his friends play with "legos". But the first
person I recall hearing use "legos" was my first department manager at
HP, a man (probably a few years older than me), who had a whole room
in his house for his collection.
> I was at Legoland just last week (or rather, a Legoland) and meant
> to check the signs to see if they had a policy, but I was too
> excited. I mean, my kids were too excited.
I suspect they call them "Lego bricks". Which, I guess is what we
called them, too. The individual things were "bricks"; the material
was "lego". So "made out of lego", but "hand me two bricks". For
Josh, the individual things are "legos", so "made out of legos" and
"hand me two legos".
Looking at their site, they call them "LEGO bricks". I suspect they
never use the phrase "out of LEGO" without specifying "bricks".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are
|the laws of nature.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw
Evan Kirshenbaum
Perhaps it's my (software) architecture background, but I would have
assumed that "legoized" meant something like "designed so that any
component can work with any other and so that a system can be easily
built by out of the components you need".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Ole Nielsby
a college suggested I should use caps: LEGO, which is the
official form.
Does Lego sound an acronyme, a name or a noun?
Should I write "lego bricks", "LEGO bricks" or "Lego bricks"?
Here, most seem to write "Lego" but that could be because
the OP did.
Skitt
> Nursery school --> Tinker Toys --> Lincoln Logs --> Erector Set -->
> more schooling -- > engineering degree, in my case.
I was toy-deprived. 'Twas the war, you know. Then the refugee stuff. So,
for me it was schooling -- > engineering degree.
--
Skitt (AmE)
LFS
> "Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "LFS" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:70o0lmF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student group work:
>>>
>>> "Where the group work is formally ‘legoised’ , the components
>>> produced by each student should be assessed individually (as well
>>> as the entire product if appropriate)."
>>>
>>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally subdivided
>>> into component parts".
>> I would take legoised to mean the opposite, i.e. put together,
>> rather than taken apart. I wonder who came up with this term? And is
>> there consensus on its meaning? It gets fewer than 100 ghits so it
>> must be recent. I suggest that it be ditched before it spreads yet
>> more confusion.
>
> Perhaps it's my (software) architecture background, but I would have
> assumed that "legoized" meant something like "designed so that any
> component can work with any other and so that a system can be easily
> built by out of the components you need".
>
A good definition and very far from the apparent meaning in the context
I quoted which seems to emphasise division rather than building.
James Silverton
But it's a bit hard to tell the difference between 4 000 000 and 3 999
999. Not that I believe the numbers myself. I just thought the result
was interesting.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I treat it as a name, so it has a capital L.
R H Draney
I looked up the construction toys I was familiar with on Wiki...historically,
the sequence was:
1911 Erector
1914 Tinkertoys
1916 Lincoln Logs
1949 Lego
1957 Girder and Panel
1993 K'NEX
No date was given for the boxes of galvanized pipe-fittings my father kept
around for his job as a plumber...I used to build all kinds of things out of
those....r
James Silverton
> Skitt filted:
>>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> Nursery school --> Tinker Toys --> Lincoln Logs --> Erector
>>> Set --> more schooling -- > engineering degree, in my case.
>>
>> I was toy-deprived. 'Twas the war, you know. Then the
>> refugee stuff. So, for me it was schooling -- > engineering
>> degree.
> I looked up the construction toys I was familiar with on
> Wiki...historically, the sequence was:
> 1911 Erector
> 1914 Tinkertoys
> 1916 Lincoln Logs
> 1949 Lego
> 1957 Girder and Panel
> 1993 K'NEX
> No date was given for the boxes of galvanized pipe-fittings my
> father kept around for his job as a plumber...I used to build
> all kinds of things out of those....r
As I said, I clearly remember seeing Legos belonging to the boy next
door in 1945 and we moved house in 1946. I don't know what the given
dates refer to, perhaps patent registration in a particular country.
Garrett Wollman
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Looking at their site, they call them "LEGO bricks". I suspect they
>never use the phrase "out of LEGO" without specifying "bricks".
Persumably their trademark lawyers were taught the nonsense legal
maxim "trademarks can only be adjectives".
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Garrett Wollman
Ole Nielsby <ole.n...@tekare-you-spamminglogisk.dk> wrote:
>Speaking of Lego - I recently used the word in writing and
>a college suggested I should use caps: LEGO, which is the
>official form.
If you work for the company or one of its licensees, then you should
use the form they prefer. Otherwise, you should treat "Lego" as any
other proper noun. It's not an initialism.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>No date was given for the boxes of galvanized pipe-fittings my father kept
>around for his job as a plumber...
I assume your surname sounds like "drainy". Were there any jokes about a
plumber with that name?
R H Draney
>
>On 27 Feb 2009 10:42:47 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>No date was given for the boxes of galvanized pipe-fittings my father kept
>>around for his job as a plumber...
>
>I assume your surname sounds like "drainy". Were there any jokes about a
>plumber with that name?
A few...most of the good ones had already been used on my grandfather....r
Paul Wolff
>In article <bpsnhl...@hpl.hp.com>,
>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Looking at their site, they call them "LEGO bricks". I suspect they
>>never use the phrase "out of LEGO" without specifying "bricks".
>
>Persumably their trademark lawyers were taught the nonsense legal
>maxim "trademarks can only be adjectives".
>
--
Paul
Sara Lorimer
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:16:16 -0800, SL...@DELETEcolumbia.edu (Sara
> Lorimer) wrote:
> >Same in AmE, in my experience. I was at Legoland just last week (or
> >rather, a Legoland) and meant to check the signs to see if they had a
> >policy, but I was too excited. I mean, my kids were too excited.
>
> I understand. Your kids were excited about Legoland, and you were
> excited about your kids excitement. <wink>
Yes, yes, exactly. The childish joy on their little faces, etc.
--
SML
stephanie...@telenet.be
> Until reading this, I had never really considered my students' work as a
> "product". A ghastly new world of costs and valuations opens up before me...
>
> --
> Laura
> (emulate St. George for email)
I'm used to 'work product' in the US legal sense -- but haven't heard
it in ages.
But if students generate 'product' undoubtedly they will soon attempt
to brand it, repackage it (wait, they do that already!), and so on.
sigh
from Brussels
Stephanie
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Skitt filted:
>>
>>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> Nursery school --> Tinker Toys --> Lincoln Logs --> Erector Set -->
>>> more schooling -- > engineering degree, in my case.
>>
>>I was toy-deprived. 'Twas the war, you know. Then the refugee stuff. So,
>>for me it was schooling -- > engineering degree.
>
> I looked up the construction toys I was familiar with on Wiki...historically,
> the sequence was:
>
> 1911 Erector
> 1914 Tinkertoys
> 1916 Lincoln Logs
> 1949 Lego
> 1957 Girder and Panel
> 1993 K'NEX
>
> No date was given for the boxes of galvanized pipe-fittings my father kept
> around for his job as a plumber...I used to build all kinds of things out of
> those....r
I recently discarded a box of old computer stuff, but I kept around a
dozen or so 10base2 connectors and terminators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10BASE2
and put them out on the coffee table. Family and friends have had a
lot of fun building artwork from them.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer
(650)857-7572
stephanie...@telenet.be
<major snips>
> I suspect the author of the document, our professor of learning and
> teaching.
Oh that's a dispiriting title -- it makes it sound as if all other
professors don't have anything to do with learning or teaching...!
R H Draney
Some should be expletives....r
Nick
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> No date was given for the boxes of galvanized pipe-fittings my father kept
>> around for his job as a plumber...I used to build all kinds of things out of
>> those....r
>
> I recently discarded a box of old computer stuff, but I kept around a
> dozen or so 10base2 connectors and terminators
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10BASE2
>
> and put them out on the coffee table. Family and friends have had a
> lot of fun building artwork from them.
I was about to tell my anecode about building things from BNC connectors
- well before Ethernet took off - but of course it's the same thing.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
sipst...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:01:50 +0100, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> >James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> the boy next door displayed the set that his uncle had liberated in
> >> Germany.
>
> >'Liberated' ? I guess in 1945 ...
>
> Or later.
>
> OED:
>
> liberate, v.
>
> c. To loot (property), to misappropriate. slang.
>
> 1944 Daily Express 7 Oct. 4/3 (caption) Excuse me, Canon, but I
> rather think you've liberated my matches.
Yes, the shortcoming with so many dictionaries:
there's no mention of whether the match came
from a box or a book, nor any reproduction of the
cartoon itself.
> ....
> 1965 G. MELLY Owning-Up vi. 59 He..wore a sombrero liberated, I
> suspect, from the wardrobe of some Latin American group he had
> worked with in the past.
Another pun whose etymology is not necessarily
obvious.
> 1974 S. E. MORISON European Discovery of America: Southern Voyages
> viii. 164 Drake's flagship Golden Hind carried no bell, but his men
> ‘liberated’ one from the church of Guatulco, Mexico, in 1579.
I'm certainly more used to seeing the slang
usage in quotes which imply paralinguistic
features non-narrative text struggles with
such as tone of voice or facial expression.
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
> (in alt.usage.english)
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2009 SIPSTON
--
sipst...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> LFS wrote on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:09:52 +0000:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adrian Bailey wrote:
> >> "LFS" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:70o0lmF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> From a draft document setting out guidelines for student
> >>> group work:
>
> >>> "Where the group work is formally ‘legoised’ , the
> >>> components produced by each student should be assessed
> >>> individually (as well as the entire product if
> >>> appropriate)."
>
> >>> There is a footnote explaining "legoised": "Formally
> >>> subdivided into component parts".
>
> >> I would take legoised to mean the opposite, i.e. put
> >> together, rather than taken apart.
> > Exactly.
> > I wonder who came up with this term?
> > learning and teaching.
> >> consensus on its meaning?
> > Among the readers of the document with whom I have spoken, it appears
> > not.
> > It gets fewer than 100 ghits so it must be
> >> recent. I suggest that it be ditched before it spreads yet
> >> more confusion.
>
> > I wish. <sigh>
>
> I don't like the sound or use of the word but I got 4 million hits for
> "legoize" and about half a million for "legoise". The rot has set in.
All that great standardisation work done
by the tedious Victorians to eradicate
the original forms of the words, on the
basis we speak English here not Scots
thankyou.
Still doesn't account for why Chesapeake
Bay is spelt with an S.
But no, not rot so much as reflux.
You amased? No?
> --
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
sipst...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:06:35 +0100, "Ole Nielsby"
>
> >Speaking of Lego - I recently used the word in writing and
> >a college suggested I should use caps: LEGO, which is the
> >official form.
>
> >Does Lego sound an acronyme, a name or a noun?
> >Should I write "lego bricks", "LEGO bricks" or "Lego bricks"?
>
> >Here, most seem to write "Lego" but that could be because
> >the OP did.
>
> I treat it as a name, so it has a capital L.
If you go to a stockist though you'll see
the manufacturers use all caps in their
trademark.
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
> (in alt.usage.english)
G DAEB
sipst...@my-deja.com
> In article <bpsnhlit....@hpl.hp.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >Looking at their site, they call them "LEGO bricks". I suspect they
> >never use the phrase "out of LEGO" without specifying "bricks".
>
> Persumably their trademark lawyers were taught the nonsense legal
> maxim "trademarks can only be adjectives".
Nah, it's their early-learning and technical
ranges that use things like wheels and
engines and feature cute little hominids
with occupational uniforms and so forth.
Not all LEGO is bricks. But for it to be a
kit it's all made by the LEGO company.
It's still LEGO--even the window panes
and roof tiles and foundation mats.
Better add Meccano and Stickelbricks
to the list, and fuzzy felt I suppose.
> -GAWollman
> --
> Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
> woll...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
> Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
> of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
G DAEB
Paul Wolff
>>>
>>>>Looking at their site, they call them "LEGO bricks". I suspect they
>>>>never use the phrase "out of LEGO" without specifying "bricks".
>>>
>>>Persumably their trademark lawyers were taught the nonsense legal
>>>maxim "trademarks can only be adjectives".
>>>
>>Quite so. Trademarks should be appositives.
>
>Some should be expletives....r
>
--
Paul
James Silverton
I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard a child use
any plural for the bricks and parts other than "legoes" or "legos"? In
the circumstances, I won't argue the spelling. There are three sizes of
legos appropriate to different ages and I will vouch for the fact that
my grandkids are extremely enthusiastic about them as was their mother
and her brother.
Paul Wolff
>Paul wrote on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:28:50 +0000:
>
>> Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote
>>> In article <bpsnhl...@hpl.hp.com>,
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at their site, they call them "LEGO bricks". I
>>>> suspect they never use the phrase "out of LEGO" without
>>>> specifying "bricks".
>>>
>>> Persumably their trademark lawyers were taught the nonsense
>>> legal maxim "trademarks can only be adjectives".
>>>
>> Quite so. Trademarks should be appositives.
>
>I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard a child use
>any plural for the bricks and parts other than "legoes" or "legos"? In
>the circumstances, I won't argue the spelling. There are three sizes of
>legos appropriate to different ages and I will vouch for the fact that
>my grandkids are extremely enthusiastic about them as was their mother
>and her brother.
I really can't remember what I've heard children call the pieces
individually. I would have called them bricks, parts, pieces or
person/people when talking to my children about them, I'm pretty sure,
and I would have expected them to copy me unless they picked up other
words from their friends.
Since I'm very sensitive to intellectual property matters including
trademark law and practice, I couldn't fail to have reacted to hearing
any use by my children of "a lego" to mean one single piece, and "legos"
to mean a bunch of them. But I don't remember that happening, and am
not now aware of ever having heard of such a practice until this thread.
The children did and still do use "lego" (spoken, so no capitalisation)
as a mass noun to mean their collection of Lego pieces, as in "Where is
the Lego?" or "Let's play Lego."
--
Paul
James Silverton
As I said, I was quoting *my* children and grandchildren (and also their
friends).
Wood Avens
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Paul wrote on Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:27:48 +0000:
>
>> James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote
>>>
>>> I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard a
>>> child use any plural for the bricks and parts other than
>>> "legoes" or "legos"? In the circumstances, I won't argue the
>>> spelling. There are three sizes of legos appropriate to
>>> different ages and I will vouch for the fact that my
>>> grandkids are extremely enthusiastic about them as was their mother
>>> and her brother.
>
>> I really can't remember what I've heard children call the
>> pieces individually. I would have called them bricks, parts, pieces
>> or person/people when talking to my children about
>> them, I'm pretty sure, and I would have expected them to copy me
>> unless they picked up other words from their friends.
>
>> Since I'm very sensitive to intellectual property matters
>> including trademark law and practice, I couldn't fail to have reacted
>> to hearing any use by my children of "a lego" to mean one single
>> piece, and "legos" to mean a bunch of them. But I don't remember that
>> happening, and am not now aware of ever
>> having heard of such a practice until this thread.
>
>> The children did and still do use "lego" (spoken, so no
>> capitalisation) as a mass noun to mean their collection of
>> Lego pieces, as in "Where is the Lego?" or "Let's play Lego."
>
>As I said, I was quoting *my* children and grandchildren (and also their
>friends).
The Lego website calls the individual bricks "bricks". It uses
"pieces" when it's talking about the accessories (wheels, humanoids,
etc) as well as the bricks.
I've never heard "legos" in England, but this may be because I don't
know enough kids of the right age. On the other hand, it may be
Pondial. Later I'll phone my American grandchildren (one of whom has
contributed Lego adventures to the fan site, so she's probably the
nearest thing to an expert I know) and ask.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Feb 27, 6:25 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:06:35 +0100, "Ole Nielsby"
>>
>> >Here, most seem to write "Lego" but that could be because the OP
>> >did.
>>
>> I treat it as a name, so it has a capital L.
>
> If you go to a stockist though you'll see the manufacturers use all
> caps in their trademark.
I don't know how trademark works in the UK, but in the US, if a word
itself is trademarked, as opposed to a "design" that happens to
incorporate a word, case is considered insignificant. (And, like
nearly everything in the trademark record, is given in all caps.)
Interlego AG filed for trademarks on "LEGO" both as a word and as a
logo in the US on September 17, 1974. (Interestingly, the word has a
claimed "first use" date of 1934 and a much later "first use in
commerce" date of 1953.) There's an earlier trademark on "LEGO
SYSTEM", granted in 1964 and allowed to expire in 1984.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit
|a piece of the moon to chemical
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |analysis before you could be sure
(650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green
|cheese.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard a child
> use any plural for the bricks and parts other than "legoes" or
> "legos"?
Not only have I heard a child use a plural other than "legoes" or
"legos", I have *been* the child. When I was young (in the early
'70s) and we used to play with them a lot, long before the
special-purpose sets became common, we conceived of "lego" as a
material, not a piece. We "built things out of lego" and "played with
lego" and "put all the lego back in the bucket". But the individual
bits were "pieces" or "bricks".
I don't think I heard "lego" used as a count noun until I met my first
department manager at HP in 1989, and his usage was strange enough to
me that it was noteworthy.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Per Rønne
> Not only have I heard a child use a plural other than "legoes" or
> "legos", I have *been* the child.
Which leads to the conclusion that in /some/ parts of the
English-speaking world, kids have evolved a 'dialect' where Lego bricks
are called 'legos' - and that this 'dialect' doesn't exist in other
parts of the English-speaking world.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est
Paul Wolff
>sipst...@my-deja.com writes:
>> On Feb 27, 6:25 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>>>
>>> >Here, most seem to write "Lego" but that could be because the OP
>>> >did.
>>>
>>> I treat it as a name, so it has a capital L.
>>
>> If you go to a stockist though you'll see the manufacturers use all
>> caps in their trademark.
>
>I don't know how trademark works in the UK, but in the US, if a word
>itself is trademarked, as opposed to a "design" that happens to
>incorporate a word, case is considered insignificant. (And, like
>nearly everything in the trademark record, is given in all caps.)
That's generally so in the European Union, too; certainly in the UK, and
we are all supposed to be harmonised, though it doesn't stop some
inconsistencies breaking through from time to time.
Registering a word in CAPS is not recognised by statute as disclaiming
any particular style of presentation, but the courts have sensibly
continued to apply that interpretation when they ask themselves the
usual questions.
Evan's post flags up something else, the use of 'trademark' as a verb to
mean either (a) 'turn [a word] into a trademark' or, as in this
particular case, (b) 'register [a word] as a trademark'. I don't see it
in either of these senses in my modern printed dictionaries (including
SOED 6th edition, 2007) and I wonder why not. Of course the older and
wholly acceptable (in my view) meaning is to mark a product with a
trademark. It's not unreasonable to extend its use to the (a) sense
above, meaning so to use a sign as to adopt and capture it as a
trademark, but I don't know any practitioner who would be happy with
(b), meaning to cause an adopted trademark to be recorded as a trademark
property in an official register. We speak of registering a word or
mark, not of trademarking a word or sign, for this purpose. A trademark
does not have to be registered, and the verbs should be kept apart for
the avoidance of confusion. As I say, my Oxford books don't recognise
either meaning (a) or (b), though these have been in use among
non-lawyers for some years to my personal knowledge. This is a BrE
perspective, to be clear.
But some here have on-line up-to-date OED access, and I'd be grateful if
anyone would care to look it up and report.
>
>Interlego AG filed for trademarks on "LEGO" both as a word and as a
>logo in the US on September 17, 1974. (Interestingly, the word has a
>claimed "first use" date of 1934 and a much later "first use in
>commerce" date of 1953.) There's an earlier trademark on "LEGO
>SYSTEM", granted in 1964 and allowed to expire in 1984.
>
"First use in commerce" refers to Federal commerce, ie into or out of
any State (of the USA). I think it must also relate to the goods listed
in the application/registration. "First use" I'm not so confident of
without looking it up, but I think it means use in commerce anywhere at
all.
--
Paul
Garrett Wollman
Paul Wolff <pa...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
[verb senses of "trademark"]
>But some here have on-line up-to-date OED access, and I'd be grateful if
>anyone would care to look it up and report.
The entry has yet to be revised for OED3. In fact, it's dated enough
that the head word is still spelled "trade-mark".
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
There is no mention (a) or (b).
OED:
trade-mark, n
Hence trade-mark v., trans. to affix or imprint a trade-mark upon
trade-marked ppl. a.; trade-marking vbl. n.
1904 D. SLADEN Lovers Japan x, Bottled beer (made in Japan..and
trade-marked with a big dragon).
1906 Westm. Gaz. 16 Mar. 5/2 The Bill..provided for the
trade-marking of all imported beers.
1936 E. B. WHITE Let. 24 Dec. (1976) 146 Your public approval of a
trademarked product and your influence can be bought at a price.
1983 P. DEVLIN All of us There xi. 133 The old [pub]..with its great
copper-banded barrels and old trade-marked mirrors.
Paul Wolff
>In article <VFtydNBp...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>,
>Paul Wolff <pa...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[verb senses of "trademark"]
>>But some here have on-line up-to-date OED access, and I'd be grateful if
>>anyone would care to look it up and report.
>
>The entry has yet to be revised for OED3. In fact, it's dated enough
>that the head word is still spelled "trade-mark".
>
--
Paul
Paul Wolff
It occurs to me that although the BrE noun form is normally trade mark,
in two words, such verb derivatives as trade marked and trade marking
really do need the hyphen, as shown in the examples above. The old pub
with its old trade marked mirrors? I think not.
--
Paul
James Hogg
Totally off topic, I can tell you that I did a job for LEGO™ over
twenty years ago. They were branching into publishing and had
commissioned a series of four children's books, one for each
season, with a character made out of Lego bricks (as I would call
them).
My job was to produce an English master text which would serve as
a basis for translations into the languages of the target
countries. I was encouraged to provide alternative translations
for various words and phrases. The idea was that my text would
also be translated (or adapted) into British and American English
versions.
I don't think that more than two books ever appeared, and I don't
think those were printed in many languages. I just have the
Finnish editions. I know that libraries in Sweden declared that
they would not be purchasing the books, because of the obvious
commercialism.
This must have been quite a disappointment for Lego and for the
authors, whose other books for very young children were highly
popular.
I got paid, though.
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
What I understand by "trade-marked mirrors" are mirrors with the names
of brewers or distillers and/or their products engraved on the surface.
James Silverton
> [verb senses of "trademark"]
>> But some here have on-line up-to-date OED access, and I'd be
>> grateful if anyone would care to look it up and report.
> The entry has yet to be revised for OED3. In fact, it's dated
> enough that the head word is still spelled "trade-mark".
I realize how fortunate I am that my public library system provides
online access to the OED but if you enter "trademark", it will retrieve
"trade-mark".
Mike Lyle
Pschitt!
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Totally off topic, I can tell you that I did a job for LEGOT over
> twenty years ago. They were branching into publishing and had
> commissioned a series of four children's books, one for each
> season, with a character made out of Lego bricks (as I would call
> them).
>
> My job was to produce an English master text which would serve as
> a basis for translations into the languages of the target
> countries. I was encouraged to provide alternative translations
> for various words and phrases. The idea was that my text would
> also be translated (or adapted) into British and American English
> versions.
>
> I don't think that more than two books ever appeared, and I don't
> think those were printed in many languages. I just have the
> Finnish editions. I know that libraries in Sweden declared that
> they would not be purchasing the books, because of the obvious
> commercialism.
>
> This must have been quite a disappointment for Lego and for the
> authors, whose other books for very young children were highly
> popular.
>
> I got paid, though.
I'm sure I was sent review copies of those! Didn't actually review them,
though...
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Worth looking in NSOED, which in my case I have not got.
>
> It occurs to me that although the BrE noun form is normally trade
> mark, in two words, such verb derivatives as trade marked and trade
> marking really do need the hyphen, as shown in the examples above. The
> old pub with its old trade marked mirrors? I think not.
I wouldn't object to "trademarked" in close compounds like that. We have
precedent, should we need that comfort, in "watermark" etc. (Oddly, OED
uses the hyphened form as the headword, or head-word, of its entry for
the verb, but gives only the single-slug form in the definition.)
--
Mike.
Paul Wolff
To clarify my "I think not" if clarification is needed: I wasn't
disputing "the old pub with its ... old trade-marked mirrors", which
would indeed have been as you say. I was pointing out that if the
hyphen had been omitted, the same words would have had a completely
different sense, so the hyphen was mandatory in the verb, even though it
was conventionally absent from the noun phrase from which the verb
derived. "I think not" was just my dismissal of the unhyphenated
meaning.
--
Paul
Mike Lyle
> definition.)
***Sorry. I mean the verb "water-mark".
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
"copyright" has a hyphen in the first quote in the OED:
1735 Parl. Coll., House of Lords 6 May (H.L.R.O.), The Editions and
Impressions of such Books made and published as well in Great
Britain as in Ireland and Scotland by persons who have paid no
considerations for the Copy-right of such Books.
All other quotes have the one word form, starting with:
1767 BLACKSTONE Comm. II. 407 Much may also be collected from the
several legislative recognitions of copyrights.
James Hogg
That probably saved me some embarrassment.
James
Mike Lyle
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:47:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> James Hogg wrote:
[...]
>>> authors, whose other books for very young children were highly
>>> popular.
>>>
>>> I got paid, though.
>>
>> I'm sure I was sent review copies of those! Didn't actually review
>> them, though...
>
> That probably saved me some embarrassment.
>
--
Mike.
Sara Lorimer
> Totally off topic, I can tell you that I did a job for LEGO˙ over
> twenty years ago. They were branching into publishing and had
> commissioned a series of four children's books, one for each
> season, with a character made out of Lego bricks (as I would call
> them).
My son has been reading Lego books lately, such as this one, "Trouble
Down t' Mine." Sorry, I mean, "Trouble at the Bridge": [1]
<http://www.amazon.com/DK-LEGO-Readers-Trouble-Beginning/dp/0789454572/r
ef=pd_sim_b_14>
[1] That punctuation can't be right.
--
SML
James Hogg
Lorimer) wrote:
>James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Totally off topic, I can tell you that I did a job for LEGO? over
>> twenty years ago. They were branching into publishing and had
>> commissioned a series of four children's books, one for each
>> season, with a character made out of Lego bricks (as I would call
>> them).
>
>My son has been reading Lego books lately, such as this one, "Trouble
>Down t' Mine." Sorry, I mean, "Trouble at the Bridge": [1]
>
><http://www.amazon.com/DK-LEGO-Readers-Trouble-Beginning/dp/0789454572/r
>ef=pd_sim_b_14>
So they're still trying. I notice that no author is credited on
the cover.
James
Lew
>> My son has been reading Lego books lately, such as this one, "Trouble
>> Down t' Mine." Sorry, I mean, "Trouble at the Bridge": [1]
>>
>> <http://www.amazon.com/DK-LEGO-Readers-Trouble-Beginning/dp/0789454572/r
>> ef=pd_sim_b_14>
James Hogg wrote:
> So they're still trying. I notice that no author is credited on
> the cover.
Then who is Marie Birkinshaw? (The name on the illustration of the cover at
the reference Amazon link)
--
Lew
James Hogg
wrote:
Ah! Marie Birkinshaw must be the person whose name wasn't visible
to me in this view:
http://www.amazon.com/DK-LEGO-Readers-Trouble-Beginning/dp/0789454572/r#reader
James
Wood Avens
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>>> James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>>
>>>> I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard a
>>>> child use any plural for the bricks and parts other than
>>>> "legoes" or "legos"?
>
>I've never heard "legos" in England, but this may be because I don't
>know enough kids of the right age. On the other hand, it may be
>Pondial. Later I'll phone my American grandchildren (one of whom has
>contributed Lego adventures to the fan site, so she's probably the
>nearest thing to an expert I know) and ask.
I asked. She replied that some Lego fans do use "legos" for the
individual pieces, but that it's uncommon. "Bricks" and "pieces" are
more usual.
That's the fan world, of course. Real Life may be entirely different.
James Silverton
>>>> James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote
>>
>>>>> I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard
>>>>> a child use any plural for the bricks and parts other than
>>>>> "legoes" or "legos"?
>> I've never heard "legos" in England, but this may be because
>> I don't know enough kids of the right age. On the other
>> hand, it may be Pondial. Later I'll phone my American
>> grandchildren (one of whom has contributed Lego adventures to
>> the fan site, so she's probably the nearest thing to an
>> expert I know) and ask.
> I asked. She replied that some Lego fans do use "legos" for
> the individual pieces, but that it's uncommon. "Bricks" and
> "pieces" are more usual.
> That's the fan world, of course. Real Life may be entirely
> different.
My son is in his 30s and sometimes works out ideas with "legoes", the
word he spontaneously used when we last talked. I don't know what he
would call an individual piece. Of course, he does not take legoes
seriously enough to fit the definition of "fan" tho' he admits he
regrets that computer controlled sets were not available when he was a
teenager.
tony cooper
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:15:22 +0000, Wood Avens
><wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't know if you have children but have you ever heard a
>>>>> child use any plural for the bricks and parts other than
>>>>> "legoes" or "legos"?
>
>>
>>I've never heard "legos" in England, but this may be because I don't
>>know enough kids of the right age. On the other hand, it may be
>>Pondial. Later I'll phone my American grandchildren (one of whom has
>>contributed Lego adventures to the fan site, so she's probably the
>>nearest thing to an expert I know) and ask.
>
>I asked. She replied that some Lego fans do use "legos" for the
>individual pieces, but that it's uncommon. "Bricks" and "pieces" are
>more usual.
>
>That's the fan world, of course. Real Life may be entirely different.
My grandchildren have Legos, so I attempted to trick the oldest (5
years-old) into using a word to describe one piece. I pointed to one
piece away from the rest and asked "What do you call that?". With
that "Another stupid question from Grampa" look, he said "A yellow
one".
I can't agree that calling an individual piece a "Lego" is uncommon.
"I stepped on a Lego" would be perfectly ordinary and frequently said.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
R H Draney
>
>My grandchildren have Legos, so I attempted to trick the oldest (5
>years-old) into using a word to describe one piece. I pointed to one
>piece away from the rest and asked "What do you call that?". With
>that "Another stupid question from Grampa" look, he said "A yellow
>one".
It's a good thing he didn't say "I call it Dennis"...that would give you a whole
new set of things to worry about....
Then again, once he starts posting to AUE, he'd probably answer "it doesn't
matter; it can't come when I call it"....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"