Legos?
Laura F Spira
his request:
-----------------------------------
Here's one for your group...
I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
pluralising Lego.
i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of Lego".
Admittedly, its a brand name but they don't pluralise Meccano, Anadin,
Weetabix, etc.
Tell me your thoughts.
------------------------------------
I'm not sure about that "they" - his choice of brand names seems
exclusively Rightpondian - but the essence of the question should be clear.
(For anyone who is not familiar with Lego, see http://www.lego.com/eng/)
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Raymond S. Wise
news:4080E22D...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk...
I'd say "Look at the car made of Legos." If I were writing for a newspaper
or magazine, I might very well write "Look at the car made of Lego blocks,"
but I would never, ever write or say "Look at the car made of Lego"!
I was going to make a passing reference to the fictional "Blockos" of
"Blocko Land" on *The Simpsons,* but a Google search turned up the fact that
"Blocko" is now an actual trademark for toy products associated with the TV
program, and they follow the Lego model: The company itself refers to
"Blocko," as in "The Simpsons TM BLOCKO TM Figure Set," while others refer
to them as "Blockos." So would I: Writing in a newsgroup, I'd say "Homer
almost drowned at Blocko Land in a 'river' made of Blockos."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Matti Lamprhey
> My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
> his request:
> -----------------------------------
> Here's one for your group...
>
> I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
> pluralising Lego.
>
> i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of
> Lego".
>
> Admittedly, its a brand name but they don't pluralise Meccano, Anadin,
> Weetabix, etc.
>
> Tell me your thoughts.
Do we think of each individual piece as "a Lego"? No. This suffices to
rule out "...made of Legos".
Matti
Ross Howard
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrought:
>My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
>his request:
>
>-----------------------------------
>
>Here's one for your group...
>
>I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
>pluralising Lego.
>
>i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of Lego".
>
>Admittedly, its a brand name but they don't pluralise Meccano, Anadin,
>Weetabix, etc.
>
>Tell me your thoughts.
Your son reports what was standard UK usage WIWAL, where "Lego" was
like "masonry" -- it referred to the material rather than the pieces
(which were called "bricks", "plates", "strips", etc., depending on
their shape).
I have heard some UK kids say "two Weetabixes" or two "Shredded
Wheats", though.
--
Ross Howard
Donna Richoux
We don't? Googling Web and Groups:
when I was four, I swallowed a lego
Yesterday he swallowed a lego
i just swallowed a lego,
Christine swallowed a Lego.
she said that a 2 year old swallowed a lego,
I once swallowed a Lego.
Josh once swallowed a lego,
I found three or four hits for "swallowed a lego piece".
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John Dean
> My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
> his request:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Here's one for your group...
>
> I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
> pluralising Lego.
>
> i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of
> Lego".
>
> Admittedly, its a brand name but they don't pluralise Meccano, Anadin,
> Weetabix, etc.
>
'How many Weetabix would you like for your breakfast?'
'I always have two Weetabix'
'How many Anadin have you taken?'
'I never take more than two Anadin at a time'
Ian Botham, of course, never ate three Shredded Wheat at once.
O cunning plural that imitates the singular. But I don't recognise any
plural for Meccano or Lego.
OED points out Lego is from [a. Da. Lego, a respelling of leg godt 'play
well'] and it is the name for the whole toy. Similarly, Meccano was the name
of the toy, not its components.
The plural seems to work with Weetabix and Anadin because each item in the
packaging is identical to every other item. But Lego and Meccano contain
pieces of different shapes, sizes and uses.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Jacqui
> I found three or four hits for "swallowed a lego piece".
They're Lego *blocks*, not Lego pieces. 6290 hits for lego-block, 19000
for lego-blocks. 2 for swallowed-lego.
But you'd have to be pretty weird to swallow one IMO, since the age one
should be to play with the stuff small enough to swallow* is older than
the age at which one commonly swallows random things.
* They make Baby Lego. The pieces are HUGE.
Jac
Matti Lamprhey
To quote from the ancient wisdom:
"The bell curve spans a sinful multitude; behold the flakes from
the outermost margins, which certainly don't chime with me."
Matti
Bob Cunningham
<john...@frag.lineone.net> said:
[...]
> 'How many Weetabix would you like for your breakfast?'
> 'I always have two Weetabix'
> 'How many Anadin have you taken?'
> 'I never take more than two Anadin at a time'
> Ian Botham, of course, never ate three Shredded Wheat at once.
Imagine trying to get through the morning on one Wheatie.
Tony Cooper
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Donna Richoux wibbled
>
>> I found three or four hits for "swallowed a lego piece".
>
>They're Lego *blocks*, not Lego pieces. 6290 hits for lego-block, 19000
>for lego-blocks. 2 for swallowed-lego.
>
>But you'd have to be pretty weird to swallow one IMO, since the age one
>should be to play with the stuff small enough to swallow* is older than
>the age at which one commonly swallows random things.
>
You will understand when you have two children. At a certain age,
anything the older one leaves around, the younger tries to eat.
I do understand that you are a new mother, and the mother of your
first. You therefore think you would *never* allow your first to
leave things scattered about while the second is crawling about. You
will acquire tolerance for the harried mother later.
Areff
> My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
> his request:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Here's one for your group...
>
> I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
> pluralising Lego.
>
> i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of Lego".
>
> Admittedly, its a brand name but they don't pluralise Meccano, Anadin,
> Weetabix, etc.
>
> Tell me your thoughts.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure about that "they" - his choice of brand names seems
> exclusively Rightpondian - but the essence of the question should be clear.
In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
--
Christopher Johnson
'Lego' is not only a trademark, but it is also an
uncountable noun, IMHO. 'Legos' sounds ridiculous
to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
not an individual plastic brick?
--
Christopher
My e-mail address <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> is
not 'munged' in any way and is fully replyable!
Areff
> Areff wrote:
>> In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
>
> 'Lego' is not only a trademark, but it is also an
> uncountable noun, IMHO.
It's true that "Lego" is a trademark, but we shouldn't allow that to
dictate how the word is used in ordinary speech. (To do so is
an age-old AUE error, the Trademark Fallacy[TM].) Would you object also
to, say, "two REALTORs"?
In BrE, it seems, "Lego" is an uncountable noun. As you are a speaker of
BrE, you should go on using it uncountably.
>'Legos' sounds ridiculous
> to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
> would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
> redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
> not an individual plastic brick?
Not in AmE. No one in AmE would refer to one of those individual things
as a "brick". It's a Lego. Two of them are two Legos. They're too
unlike bricks to call them bricks. Call them "Lego things" if you must.
In Canada they say "two beer", BTW.
How 'bout "Eggo", for a brand of frozen waffle? Some similar issues
are present. Do they still say "Leggo my Eggo" on commercials, or did
their trademark lawyers ax that?
--
Mike Lyle
Be that as it may, "*twenty Legoes" would be unidiomatic in European
English, and an examiner would be obliged to mark it wrong.
Note to Jac: the baby kind is "Duplo", no? And wait till babe no 2
calls out in the night and your bare foot treads firmly on a piece of
Lego left behind by babe no 1.
Mike.
R H Draney
>
>'Lego' is not only a trademark, but it is also an
>uncountable noun, IMHO. 'Legos' sounds ridiculous
>to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
>would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
>redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
>not an individual plastic brick?
It appears we're all guilty of one sin or another...quoting from
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/fairplay.asp:
If the LEGO trademark is used at all, 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".Also, the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the
surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding
text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted.
Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is
used.
So remember, when you're walking around the house at night in your bare feet,
and you step on a hard piece of plastic and slice your instep open, you should
cry out "Ouch, dammit, I've just been mortally wounded by one of Junior's LEGO®
bricks!",,,r
Michael Nitabach
> My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue -
> here is his request:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Here's one for your group...
>
> I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
> pluralising Lego.
>
> i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of
> Lego".
>
> Admittedly, its a brand name but they don't pluralise Meccano,
> Anadin, Weetabix, etc.
>
> Tell me your thoughts.
It does not sound unnatural to me to refer to each piece as "a Lego",
nor to refer to a collection of pieces as "Legos".
--
Mike Nitabach
Michael Nitabach
news:c5rolq$4qrin$1...@ID-201366.news.uni-berlin.de:
In some circles, "Let's have bagel for brunch" is idiomatic.
--
Mike Nitabach
Jacqui
> Jacqui wrote:
>>They're Lego *blocks*, not Lego pieces. 6290 hits for lego-block,
>>19000 for lego-blocks. 2 for swallowed-lego.
>>
>>But you'd have to be pretty weird to swallow one IMO, since the
>>age one should be to play with the stuff small enough to swallow*
>>is older than the age at which one commonly swallows random
>>things.
>>
>
> You will understand when you have two children. At a certain age,
> anything the older one leaves around, the younger tries to eat.
>
> I do understand that you are a new mother, and the mother of your
> first. You therefore think you would *never* allow your first to
> leave things scattered about while the second is crawling about.
> You will acquire tolerance for the harried mother later.
I may be a new mother of only one (acrobatic crawling new-standee) but
I am also big sister to two brothers, who were
toddling/crawling/newborn at the peak of my Lego-owning, and therefore
I am also daughter to a formerly-harried mother. I was allowed to play
with Lego in *my* room. Where male persons under the age of five were
not allowed to even *be*. It worked.
Jac
Michael Nitabach
news:c5roo...@drn.newsguy.com:
I would exclaim, "Damn Legos!"
--
Mike Nitabach
Maria Conlon
> 'Lego' is not only a trademark, but it is also an
> uncountable noun, IMHO. 'Legos' sounds ridiculous
> to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
> would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
> redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
> not an individual plastic brick?
After reading the posts in this thread (and I think there was
another thread on this subject a while back), it seems that in BrE
"Lego" is "Lego," singular or plural. And in AmE, "Lego" is the
singular (piece or brick or part), with the plural being "Legos."
It's just another difference between BrE and AmE. And since Laura
(who sent in the initial inquiry) is in England, it would seem that
"Lego" is the plural her son should use. Unless his friends all
start saying "Legos," that is.
Maria Conlon
Christopher Johnson
> Christopher Johnson wrote:
> > Areff wrote:
> >> In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
> >
> > 'Lego' is not only a trademark, but it is also an
> > uncountable noun, IMHO.
>
> It's true that "Lego" is a trademark, but we shouldn't allow that to
> dictate how the word is used in ordinary speech. (To do so is
> an age-old AUE error, the Trademark Fallacy[TM].) Would you object also
> to, say, "two REALTORs"?
>
> In BrE, it seems, "Lego" is an uncountable noun. As you are a speaker of
> BrE, you should go on using it uncountably.
>
> >'Legos' sounds ridiculous
> > to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
> > would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
> > redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
> > not an individual plastic brick?
>
> Not in AmE. No one in AmE would refer to one of those individual things
> as a "brick". It's a Lego. Two of them are two Legos. They're too
> unlike bricks to call them bricks. Call them "Lego things" if you must.
Ah, "Lego things"! How imaginative!
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary at:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=45481&dict=CALD
....refers to these 'Lego things' as "small plastic
bricks", but neither I nor that dictionary was
suggesting that they are habitually *called*
"bricks". "Lego pieces" (or "pieces of Lego"), in
any event, seems a little less bland than "lego
things", at least to me.
[..]
Christopher Johnson
That wouldn't work for me, since *I'm* "Junior" where
I live!
Sara Lorimer
> Note to Jac: the baby kind is "Duplo", no? And wait till babe no 2
> calls out in the night and your bare foot treads firmly on a piece of
> Lego left behind by babe no 1.
Perhaps one of the best reasons there is to stop at one.
--
SML
Dalg! Glidj! Blimlimlim!
http://pirate-women.com
Mike Lyle
So did our favourite elf drink so much as to be legoless? That might
explain the poor fellow's total inability to act.
Mike.
Matti Lamprhey
I think this gets to the heart of the problem. Here in Britain we're
not using a plural at all when we say that something "is built of
Lego" -- it's patterned on "built of balsa" rather than "built of
matchsticks".
Matti
Donna Richoux
Seems to me there's a grammatical category here --
That wall is made of stone -- That wall is made of stones.
The roof is made of tile -- The roof is made of tiles.
The house is made of brick -- The house is made of bricks.
Either one is OK, depending on the emphasis. One is the overall
material, the other suggests the fitting together of many small pieces.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Tony Cooper
>
>Not in AmE. No one in AmE would refer to one of those individual things
>as a "brick". It's a Lego. Two of them are two Legos. They're too
>unlike bricks to call them bricks. Call them "Lego things" if you must.
It was much simpler in my day. Lincoln Logs were already pluralized.
What, though, of Tinker Toys? A single object from that wonderful
round tube would be neither a Tinker nor a Toy. To the best of my
memory, we described them by shape: a round thing, a stick thing,
etc. Then there were Erector Sets.,,,thing-a-me-bobs and doohickeys.
John Dean
--
John Dean
Oxford
Maria Conlon
>
> In some circles, "Let's have bagel for brunch" is idiomatic.
Just "bagel"? Not *a* bagel? Not "bagels" or *some* bagels?
(What circles are these?)
Maria Conlon
And don't forget the "inner circles."
Maria Conlon
> Areff wrote:
>>> 'Legos' sounds ridiculous
>>> to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
>>> would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
>>> redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
>>> not an individual plastic brick?
>>
>> Not in AmE. No one in AmE would refer to one of those individual
>> things as a "brick". It's a Lego. Two of them are two Legos.
>> They're too unlike bricks to call them bricks. Call them "Lego
>> things" if you must.
>
> Ah, "Lego things"! How imaginative!
Wouldn't "Lego thingks" be more in keeping with aue? Wouldn't that
be more fair to all parties?
Maria Conlon
Or "Lego thingies" -- yes, that would be best.
Christopher Johnson
Or....
"Lego thingumabobs" ("Lego thingamabobs")
or....
"Lego thingumajigs" ("Lego thingamajigs")
Perhaps we should just go with "Lego thingummies" -- yes,
that would be best.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
I wonder if this is regional or whether the age difference between you
and me pins down the date of the switch. When I was growing up, it
was definitely "lego". Like wood, stone, and plastic, lego was a mass
noun. Nowadays it seems to be "legos". I hear it a lot, but it still
strikes me as odd whenever I do.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin
(650)857-7572
Michael Nitabach
$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Michael Nitabach wrote:
>>
>> In some circles, "Let's have bagel for brunch" is idiomatic.
>
> Just "bagel"? Not *a* bagel? Not "bagels" or *some* bagels?
>
> (What circles are these?)
In these circles, "bagel" is uncountable, and one could also say, "Did
you get some bagel for tomorrow?"
--
Mike Nitabach
Steve Hayes
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
>his request:
>
>-----------------------------------
>
>Here's one for your group...
>
>I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
>pluralising Lego.
>
>i.e: "Look at the car made of Legos" vs "Look at the car made of Lego".
See "kudos" threads, passim.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mark Brader
> If the LEGO trademark is used at all, 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".
Then this tells us the answer. If they think they have to tell us
never to say "models built of Legos", then it means that people
*do* say it, and therefore that it is, definitively, correct.
(Except, of course, to the people who invented, or go along with,
the nonsensical conversion of already-established noun trademarks
into adjectives.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Some people open all the windows:
m...@vex.net | wise wives welcome spring by moving the UNIX."
-- ad, Housewife magazine, April 1941
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Kay Archer
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:10848iv...@corp.supernews.com...
> R.H. Draney quotes http://www.lego.com/eng/info/fairplay.asp:
> > If the LEGO trademark is used at all, 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".
>
> Then this tells us the answer. If they think they have to tell us
> never to say "models built of Legos", then it means that people
> *do* say it, and therefore that it is, definitively, correct.
>
> (Except, of course, to the people who invented, or go along with,
> the nonsensical conversion of already-established noun trademarks
> into adjectives.)
> --
>
What is the plural of kleenex or aspirin? (Intentionally not capitalized
(g)).
Areff
> Areff <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>> In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
>
> I wonder if this is regional or whether the age difference between you
> and me pins down the date of the switch. When I was growing up, it
> was definitely "lego". Like wood, stone, and plastic, lego was a mass
> noun. Nowadays it seems to be "legos". I hear it a lot, but it still
> strikes me as odd whenever I do.
The earliest hit for "Legos" I can find via ProQuest is an article in the
December 11, 1977 _Washington Post_:
It's not fair.
*They* get the Legos and we get the leg rest. They get the mini speed
racers, cuddly teddy bears, gooey finger paints, "Star Wars" light
sabers, Frisbees and skateboards and *we* get the electric tie rack.
I wonder whether the Lego people were themselves using "Legos" at some
relevant time, like, say, 1977, say in television commercials for the
product.
--
R H Draney
>
>(Except, of course, to the people who invented, or go along with,
>the nonsensical conversion of already-established noun trademarks
>into adjectives.)
*All* trademarks are adjectives, by convention...you strap on (or whatever
fastener is involved) a pair of "Rollerblade® in-line skates", enjoy a
"Fudgsicle® frozen novelty", and wipe your nose with a "Kleenex® facial
tissue"....
(I had a friend back in high school who felt that last brand was silly for other
reasons...after all, he reasoned, people seldom use them to clean their
necks)....r
david56
In these parts, "bagel" is countable. Otherwise, how would you know
how many there are in the pack you buy at Costco?
--
David
=====
david56
>
> "Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
> news:10848iv...@corp.supernews.com...
> > R.H. Draney quotes http://www.lego.com/eng/info/fairplay.asp:
> > > If the LEGO trademark is used at all, 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".
> >
> > Then this tells us the answer. If they think they have to tell us
> > never to say "models built of Legos", then it means that people
> > *do* say it, and therefore that it is, definitively, correct.
> >
> > (Except, of course, to the people who invented, or go along with,
> > the nonsensical conversion of already-established noun trademarks
> > into adjectives.)
>
> What is the plural of kleenex or aspirin? (Intentionally not capitalized
> (g)).
I don't use "Kleenex" as a generic noun, so the plural is "tissues".
Aspirin is surely not a tradename - we buy "aspirin BP", and the word
is both countable and non-countable depending on whether you are
discussing the drug or the tablets. One aspirin, two aspirins. Some
aspirins (tablets), some aspirin (the drug).
--
David
=====
Charles Riggs
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
>his request:
>
>-----------------------------------
>
>Here's one for your group...
>
>I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
>pluralising Lego.
...
>Tell me your thoughts.
Do Americans, for the English, commonly exist in 'bunches'? Do your
fellow Britons, as well, or do you more often find them in, say,
'groups'? Or 'gatherings', even?
--
Charles Riggs
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Charles Riggs
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was allowed to play
>with Lego in *my* room. Where male persons under the age of five were
>not allowed to even *be*. It worked.
Not-yet-formed adults are not allowed in the pubs of Edinburgh,
speaking of the under fives. Wise people, those Scots. At times.
'The Church, drink, England, and children are the curse of Ireland',
to modify the old expression slightly. You Americans have seen
bicycles built for two, but have you ever seen a perambulator built
for three? Of course you haven't, unless you've come over here where
there are fleets of them on every footpath, sometimes being pushed by
a pregnant teenager. I exaggerate not.
Charles Riggs
>In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
.........................................=> ^^^^^^^^
Those things, Bob. They, and others like them, are what I was talking
about. It's Greek to me.
Charles Riggs
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Ian Botham, of course, never ate three Shredded Wheat at once.
Ian should know they're packaged in threes for a good reason. That is
the optimum number when having them for breakfast, as any red-blooded
American boy knows. From his name I suspect Mr Botham isn't an
American, so he may be excused.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> The earliest hit for "Legos" I can find via ProQuest is an article in
> the December 11, 1977 _Washington Post_:
>
> It's not fair.
> *They* get the Legos and we get the leg rest. They get the mini
> speed racers, cuddly teddy bears, gooey finger paints, "Star Wars"
> light sabers, Frisbees and skateboards and *we* get the electric tie
That use of "Legos" doesn't strike me as referring to the individual
pieces, but to the assembled and boxed items -- as in "See the boxes on
that shelf? They're Legos."
Matti
Laura F Spira
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:52:13 +0100, Laura F Spira
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
>>his request:
>>
>>-----------------------------------
>>
>>Here's one for your group...
>>
>>I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
>>pluralising Lego.
>
> ...
>
>
>>Tell me your thoughts.
>
>
> Do Americans, for the English, commonly exist in 'bunches'? Do your
> fellow Britons, as well, or do you more often find them in, say,
> 'groups'? Or 'gatherings', even?
This may be a family idiosyncrasy. We often refer to groups of people,
of whatever nationality or other characteristic, as bunches. Moments
before reading this message, I told someone that I had spent the last
few days with a bunch of academic accountants. (No doubt someone here
can come up with a more appropriate collective noun.)
I have never given the expression any thought and it certainly carries
no derogatory connotation in *our* usage but, on reflection, I suppose I
most often hear bunch applied to people in expressions like "a bunch of
losers" so Charles' sensitivity may not be quite such an outlandish
reaction as I first thought.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> What is the plural of kleenex
Kleenices. What else?
or aspirin? (Intentionally not capitalized
Aspirins for the pills; aspirin for the medication
> (g)).
Haw.
--
Bob Lieblich
Latin skoler
CyberCypher
> Charles Riggs wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:52:13 +0100, Laura F Spira
>> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue -
>>>here is his request:
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------
>>>
>>>Here's one for your group...
>>>
>>>I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
>>>pluralising Lego.
>> ...
>>>Tell me your thoughts.
>>
>> Do Americans, for the English, commonly exist in 'bunches'? Do
>> your fellow Britons, as well, or do you more often find them in,
>> say, 'groups'? Or 'gatherings', even?
>
> This may be a family idiosyncrasy. We often refer to groups of
> people, of whatever nationality or other characteristic, as
> bunches. Moments before reading this message, I told someone that
> I had spent the last few days with a bunch of academic
> accountants. (No doubt someone here can come up with a more
> appropriate collective noun.)
A sum? A total? An addition?
> I have never given the expression any thought and it certainly
> carries no derogatory connotation in *our* usage but, on
> reflection, I suppose I most often hear bunch applied to people in
> expressions like "a bunch of losers" so Charles' sensitivity may
> not be quite such an outlandish reaction as I first thought.
Nah, "a lovely bunch of coconuts" is all.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
Adrian Bailey
news:4080E22D...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk...
> My son has asked me to tap into the collective wisdom of aue - here is
> his request:
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Here's one for your group...
>
> I'm currently arguing with a bunch of Americans who insist on
> pluralising Lego.
>
>
> Weetabix, etc.
>
> Tell me your thoughts.
You learn something every day. There are people who say "Legos"!! The toy is
called "Lego", not the bricks.
Adrian
Areff
> Aspirin is surely not a tradename - we buy "aspirin BP", and the word
> is both countable and non-countable depending on whether you are
> discussing the drug or the tablets. One aspirin, two aspirins. Some
> aspirins (tablets), some aspirin (the drug).
Aspirin is one example of a trademarked term that became genericized (in
the _de jure_ sense) in the US, or whatever the verb is. (It's still a
trademark in some countries IIRC.)
--
Areff
Hmm... I see how you might see it that way. I think, actually, that here
we have "Legos" as the plural of "Legos", if you follow me. But it's not
the clearest example, to be sure.
--
Wood Avens
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> Do Americans, for the English, commonly exist in 'bunches'? Do your
>> fellow Britons, as well, or do you more often find them in, say,
>> 'groups'? Or 'gatherings', even?
>
>This may be a family idiosyncrasy. We often refer to groups of people,
>of whatever nationality or other characteristic, as bunches. Moments
>before reading this message, I told someone that I had spent the last
>few days with a bunch of academic accountants. (No doubt someone here
>can come up with a more appropriate collective noun.)
I use it exactly as Laura does, and it's certainly not applied only to
Americans. It's so much a part of my normal vocabulary that I hadn't
thought about it until now. I wouldn't use it formally, or in serious
writing, but equally I'd be unlikely to use 'group' or 'gathering' in
conversation.
So it's not just Laura's family. It may be a slightly larger sub-set
of Brits rather than a national characteristic, though.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Areff
> Or, are we supposed to just call Legos "blocks" now, or something gay
> like that that you old people wanna do?
I think, Young Joey, you've hit the nail on the head, though perhaps
unwittingly. We Americans call the Lego things "Legos" because there's no
better term for them. They aren't "bricks" -- "brick" implies something
generally bigger and not having the peculiar characteristics of a Lego
thing; and they aren't "blocks" (ditto). Sure, we could say "Lego
things", but "Legos" is more natural.
If the 'Tish call the individual Lego pieces "bricks", say, I think it
just shows that the 'Tish have a different conception of what a "brick"
is.
--
Robert Lieblich
>
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote
[ ... ]
> > Imagine trying to get through the morning on one Wheatie.
>
> You CAN'T SAY THAT! A "Wheatie" isn't a thing! "Wheaties" is a BRAND
> NAME of a cereal! You can eat "Wheaties", but one little thingy in
> the Wheaties box ISN'T CALLED "a Wheatie"! You people is tarts!
Joey, ya gotta lurn to reed. Bob was offering an analogy -- just as
there is no one Wheatie, there is no one Lego. His point was
precisely that people don't say "Wheatie." You don't have to agree
with him but you might at least understand his point. By agreeing
with him on Wheaties (albeit you don't realize it), you're lending
credence to his argument on Legos, with which your other postings
indicate you disagree.
What now? Do you disown your prior remark as irony or drama or
trolling? Or do you go after me? If it's the latter, please at
least try to understand what I wrote. It really isn't all that
subtle.
BTW, that whole business about looking for water was an extended pun
on the two meanings of "boring." Sometimes you need to remember
what you said.
--
Liebs
Disappointed at retrogression
david56
> "Lego" AIN'T a material! You can't say, "I'm wearing Lego" or my
> dress is made from "Lego". "I built my house from Lego". Wood, silk,
> satin, beeswax, rock, stone, cement, plastic, etc, etc, AREN'T
> countable. They're just materials that exist. "This is made from
> silk", "that is made from cement". You can't have A silk, A wood, A
> plastic. You can have a piece of silk, a piece of wood, a slab of
> cement, etc. You CAN have a "lego". "Legos" can be broken down into
> units. Cement, wood, plastic, etc, can't. If "bricks" is countable,
> and a house can be made of "bricks", how come a toy house can't be
> made of "Legos"? Another example of the morons who dictate Britain
> being stupid, uneducated losers who don't gots no education and is
> morons!
OK, I'm bored with this now. Read this then shut up:
http://www.lego.com/legoland/billund/parkmap/miniland.asp?locale=2057
http://tinyurl.com/2mxp8
--
David
=====
Mike Lyle
[...]
> What is the plural of kleenex or aspirin? (Intentionally not capitalized
> (g)).
As a student I laid down the rule, which has never to my knowledge
been challenged, that the plural of "Kleenex" was "Kleenices".
The plural of "pigeon" was, of course, "pigeata" (both "a"s short).
(This was a reference to college pigeon-holes for mail; the idiom is,
of course irregular, since one would normally have expected a
genitive, but that's living language for you.)
"Envelope" is a feminine Greek noun of four syllables, on Anglophone
lips stressed ././ like "Penelope".
"Aspirin" is clearly Russian, and I don't know how to form its plural.
Mike.
R H Draney
>
>DE781 wrote:
>>
>> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>[ ... ]
>> > Imagine trying to get through the morning on one Wheatie.
>>
>> You CAN'T SAY THAT! A "Wheatie" isn't a thing! "Wheaties" is a BRAND
>> NAME of a cereal! You can eat "Wheaties", but one little thingy in
>> the Wheaties box ISN'T CALLED "a Wheatie"! You people is tarts!
>
>Joey, ya gotta lurn to reed. Bob was offering an analogy -- just as
>there is no one Wheatie, there is no one Lego. His point was
>precisely that people don't say "Wheatie." You don't have to agree
>with him but you might at least understand his point. By agreeing
>with him on Wheaties (albeit you don't realize it), you're lending
>credence to his argument on Legos, with which your other postings
>indicate you disagree.
There's a line in the sand here, but I'm not sure exactly where it is...true,
nobody refers to a single "Wheatie", but one "Cheerio" or "Cocoa Puff" is
unremarkable...one might even refer to a solitary "Sugar Frosted Flake" but
that's getting near the boundary...on the other side, there is no "LUcky Charm"
and no "Grape Nut", and probably no "Alpha Bit"....
Apart from Tony the Tiger's product, the various "Pops" and "Smacks" are beyond
singuarlization, and I'd think long and hard before letting a "Rice Krispie"
stand alone....
The safest course is to restrict oneself to those products with unpluralized
names...nobody will speak of, and nobody will fault them for failing to speak of
a discrete number of "Cap'n Crunches" or "Special Ks"....
I'm with Joey on "Legos", though, even if his lips tend to develop a bit of
froth when he addresses the matter....r
Jon Spira
>
> Oy! How old is your son? "Lego" may be a brand name, but *A* "lego"
> is also one of the little buildy things that Lego makes. Therefore
> two *lego**s*** are two of the buildy things. "This car is made of
> legos" is the *only* correct way to say it. His brand names are like
> "WTF"??? Why would you ever need to pluralise brand names? What's
> being pluralized is the *thing* (legos) that the LEGO brand is known
> for making. BTW, why didn't your son post to the AUE himself?
Her son is 28 years old.
Since I initiated this thread, I thought I should end it with a link
that I was given today to satisfy the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego#LEGO_vs._LEGOS
The relevant quote reading....
"LEGO's name has become so synonymous with their flagship toy that
many use the words "LEGO" or "LEGOs" to refer to the bricks
themselves, and even to any plastic bricks resembling LEGO bricks,
although the LEGO company discourages such dilution of their trademark
name (see trademark). LEGO catalogues in the 1970's and 1980's
contained a note which read:
The word LEGOŽ is a brand name and is very special to all of us in the
LEGO Group Companies. We would sincerely like your help in keeping it
special. Please always refer to our bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys'
and not 'LEGOS.' By doing so, you will be helping to protect and
preserve a brand of which we are very proud and that stands for
quality the world over. Thank you! Susan Williams, Consumer Services."
Don't 'oy' my mother.
Jon.
Maria Conlon
>
> What is the plural of kleenex or aspirin? (Intentionally not
capitalized
> (g)).
How I would use "kleenexes" and "kleenex":
I have two kleenexes left.
I need to buy more kleenex.
Would you like some kleenex (or kleenexes)?
Do you have any kleenex (or kleenexes)?
You can make "pompons" with kleenex (or kleenexes).[1]
We used a whole box of kleenex (or "kleenexes") to make "pompons."
Note that "kleenex" has become a generic term here for "facial (or
cleansing) tissue."
How I would use "aspirin" and "aspirins":
There are 100 aspirins in a full bottle.
Please buy some aspirin when you go to the store.
Please buy aspirins when you go to the store.
Would you like some aspirin?
Would you like a couple of aspirins?
As it appears, I don't always follow a hard and fast rule about
pluralizing "kleenex" or "aspirin." It will be whatever fits the
circumstances, the moment, and the other people involved. (Does that
make me "wishy-washy" or "flexible"?)
[1] The little kind of pompons that you might see on the
bride-and-groom's car after a wedding. People probably don't do this
any more. For one thing, the Kleenex (that is, tissue) pompons
tended to fall apart if it rained.
--
Maria Conlon
Christopher Johnson
> No, you're wrong, CJ, because "Lego" IS a countable noun.
[..]
I don't think I'm right or wrong, Joey. There just appears
to be a pondian difference involved here which has been
discussed at length in this thread. Being British but
living in Chicago, I find these discussions a little bit
bewildering at times, as you can perhaps imagine!
--
Christopher
My e-mail address <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> is
not 'munged' in any way and is fully replyable!
Christopher Johnson
> "Aspirin" is clearly Russian, and I don't know how to form its plural.
Aspirini?
Maria Conlon
> DE781 [to Laura Spira re "Lego" vs "Legos"]
>>
>> Oy! How old is your son? "Lego" may be a brand name, but *A*
"lego"
>> is also one of the little buildy things that Lego makes.
Therefore
>> two *lego**s*** are two of the buildy things. "This car is made
of
>> legos" is the *only* correct way to say it. His brand names are
like
>> "WTF"??? Why would you ever need to pluralise brand names?
What's
>> being pluralized is the *thing* (legos) that the LEGO brand is
known
>> for making. BTW, why didn't your son post to the AUE himself?
>
> Her son is 28 years old.
Hello, Jon.
>
[deleted the things relevant to Lego question]
>
> Don't 'oy' my mother.
But an "oy" is a friendly gesture more often than not. To give an
"oy," get an "oy," or understand an "oy" means you are one of us. I
have not yet been "oyed" that I know of or remember, and I am quite
jealous of your mother. (However, I am not 100% sure that Joey used
"oy" correctly. There *are* rules for these things, even if one
doesn't know them.)
(See my other post in this thread, Jon, for "Lego" comments.)
(Laura, you are probably reading this so I'll ask: Does Jon know
about the AofM? My children do not -- and they are 29 & 26. I figure
they have no real need to know.)
Maria Conlon
OBediting: I've edited this post a few times for clarity. It may now
contain some inexplicable errors. (MConlon 2004)
Maria Conlon
DE781 wrote:
> "Lego" AIN'T a material! You can't say, "I'm wearing Lego" or my
> dress is made from "Lego". "I built my house from Lego". Wood,
silk,
> satin, beeswax, rock, stone, cement, plastic, etc, etc, AREN'T
> countable. They're just materials that exist. "This is made from
> silk", "that is made from cement". You can't have A silk, A wood,
A
> plastic. You can have a piece of silk, a piece of wood, a slab of
> cement, etc. You CAN have a "lego". "Legos" can be broken down
into
> units. Cement, wood, plastic, etc, can't. If "bricks" is
countable,
> and a house can be made of "bricks", how come a toy house can't be
> made of "Legos"? Another example of the morons who dictate
Britain
> being stupid, uneducated losers who don't gots no education and is
> morons!
Calm down, Joe. You're getting too carried away. "Morons," "stupid,"
and "losers" in a conversation about the plural of "Lego" is
overreaction, plain and simple. This is *not* an issue to get heated
about -- or even "look" heated about.
Also, it's not a question of who's right, Leftpondia or Rightpondia.
Usage is usage, and each "pondia" has its own "right" usage.
Maria Conlon
I reserve the right to denounce my claim that "usage is usage, and
each 'pondia' has its own 'right' usage" at any time that such a
denouncement suits my purposes. Okay?
Jacqui
> Matti Lamprhey wrote
>> I think this gets to the heart of the problem. Here in Britain
>> we're not using a plural at all when we say that something "is
>> built of Lego" -- it's patterned on "built of balsa" rather than
>> "built of matchsticks".
>
> "Lego" AIN'T a material! You can't say, "I'm wearing Lego" or my
> dress is made from "Lego". "I built my house from Lego".
On the contrary. I built a lovely house from Lego this afternoon, with
my young cousin and his sister. See Jon's definitive quote from
LEGO(TM) themselves as to why this *is* correct usage.
> You CAN have a "lego".
No, you can't. There's at least two reasons why, one of which is pure
pedantry (but where else should this come up but aue?)
> "Legos" can
> be broken down into units. Cement, wood, plastic, etc, can't. If
> "bricks" is countable, and a house can be made of "bricks", how
> come a toy house can't be made of "Legos"?
Never heard of a brick [s**t]house?
Jac
Areff
> I don't think I'm right or wrong, Joey. There just appears
> to be a pondian difference involved here which has been
> discussed at length in this thread. Being British but
> living in Chicago, I find these discussions a little bit
> bewildering at times, as you can perhaps imagine!
Being New Yorkish but living in Chicago, I find the notion that people can
tolerate 40mph winds (like those of today) a little bit bewildering at
times.
--
Areff
> On the contrary. I built a lovely house from Lego this afternoon, with
> my young cousin and his sister. See Jon's definitive quote from
> LEGO(TM) themselves as to why this *is* correct usage.
Correct in the sense that that's what the Lego folks themselves want you
to do, sher. Correct in the sense of AmE usage? Nah, unless you're
idiosyncratic like Kirsh.
--
Dylan Nicholson
>
> Seems to me there's a grammatical category here --
>
> That wall is made of stone -- That wall is made of stones.
> The roof is made of tile -- The roof is made of tiles.
Don't think I've ever used or heard 'tile' used in this fashion. I
understand that 'shingles' is more common in AmE, when referring to
the type of overlapping tiles that rooves..er..roofs...are typically
constructed from.
Dylan
Donna Richoux
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote
> >
> > Seems to me there's a grammatical category here --
> >
> > That wall is made of stone -- That wall is made of stones.
> > The roof is made of tile -- The roof is made of tiles.
>
> Don't think I've ever used or heard 'tile' used in this fashion. I
> understand that 'shingles' is more common in AmE, when referring to
> the type of overlapping tiles that rooves..er..roofs...are typically
> constructed from.
I'm living now in a country where most of the rooves - uh - roofs are
covered in rows of red or black wavy ceramic tile. Here's a picture:
http://www.stalberg.nl/oud/img/dak-oost.jpg
I think they use these in the UK -- are they called "tiles" there? Old
houses used slate, I think.
But for purposes of the grammatical discussion, you can substitute "the
floor is made of tile" or "the wall is made of tile." Do those sound any
better to you?
--
Best - Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands
John Dean
> Kay Archer wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> What is the plural of kleenex
>
>
> or aspirin? (Intentionally not capitalized
>
>
>> (g)).
>
> Haw.
'aspirin' is used for the plural of the tablets. 'Take two aspirin and call
me in the morning'.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Dr Robin Bignall
<chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>> Christopher Johnson wrote:
>> > Areff wrote:
>> >> Christopher Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >>> 'Legos' sounds ridiculous
>> >>> to me. I suppose "....made out of pieces of 'Lego'"
>> >>> would be OK, but "pieces of" seems incredibly
>> >>> redundant. Besides, 'Lego' is surely the whole toy,
>> >>> not an individual plastic brick?
>> >>
>> >> Not in AmE. No one in AmE would refer to one of those individual
>> >> things as a "brick". It's a Lego. Two of them are two Legos.
>> >> They're too unlike bricks to call them bricks. Call them "Lego
>> >> things" if you must.
>> >
>> > Ah, "Lego things"! How imaginative!
>>
>> Wouldn't "Lego thingks" be more in keeping with aue? Wouldn't that
>> be more fair to all parties?
>>
>> Maria Conlon
>> Or "Lego thingies" -- yes, that would be best.
>
>Or....
>
>"Lego thingumabobs" ("Lego thingamabobs")
>
>or....
>
>"Lego thingumajigs" ("Lego thingamajigs")
>
>Perhaps we should just go with "Lego thingummies" -- yes,
>that would be best.
Are those bits you have spare at the end of constructing something
legovers?
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
John Dean
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:02:46 +0100, Laura F Spira
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>> Do Americans, for the English, commonly exist in 'bunches'? Do your
>>> fellow Britons, as well, or do you more often find them in, say,
>>> 'groups'? Or 'gatherings', even?
>>
>> This may be a family idiosyncrasy. We often refer to groups of
>> people, of whatever nationality or other characteristic, as bunches.
>> Moments before reading this message, I told someone that I had spent
>> the last few days with a bunch of academic accountants. (No doubt
>> someone here can come up with a more appropriate collective noun.)
>
> I use it exactly as Laura does, and it's certainly not applied only to
> Americans. It's so much a part of my normal vocabulary that I hadn't
> thought about it until now. I wouldn't use it formally, or in serious
> writing, but equally I'd be unlikely to use 'group' or 'gathering' in
> conversation.
>
> So it's not just Laura's family. It may be a slightly larger sub-set
> of Brits rather than a national characteristic, though.
There was a 'joke' about a woman who reported being graped. Asked if she
meant 'raped' she said 'No.There was a bunch of them.'
But we've all seen 'The Wild Bunch', nest paw?
OED has a goodly collection of cites for 'bunch' as a collection of peeps:
<< 1622 Jackson Judah 76 See what persons God hath picked out of all the
bunch of the Patriarches, Prophets, Judges, and Kings. 1633 Sanderson Serm.
II. 39 Though+he do but only name it [charity] in the bunch among other
duties. 1687 W. Sherwin in Hist. Magd. Coll. (Oxf. Hist. Soc.) 79 As very a
rascal as any in the Bunch. a1784 Johnson in Boswell (1816) IV. 151, I am
glad the Ministry is removed. Such a bunch of imbecility never disgraced a
country. 1832 Athenćum No. 243. 355 Two friars are bargaining for a bunch
of cherubs. 1840 C. F. Hoffman Greyslaer I. v. 92 You'll find them pretty
much here and there, in bunches, helping one another. a1888 Mod. She's the
best of the bunch. 1893 W. S. Gilbert Utopia i. 11 Because we are, By
furlongs far The best of all the bunch. 1909 G. B. Shaw Lett. to Granville
Barker (1956) 156 He will be the best of the bunch, like all new converts.
1936 D. Powell Turn, Magic Wheel i. 37 He liked knowing the 'Greenwich
Village Bunch'. >>
And we all know the Munch Bunch? And the Brady Bunch?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Maria Conlon
> Dylan Nicholson wrote:
>> Donna Richoux wrote
>>>
>>> Seems to me there's a grammatical category here --
>>>
>>> That wall is made of stone -- That wall is made of stones.
>>> The roof is made of tile -- The roof is made of tiles.
>>
>> Don't think I've ever used or heard 'tile' used in this fashion.
I
>> understand that 'shingles' is more common in AmE, when referring
to
>> the type of overlapping tiles that rooves..er..roofs...are
typically
>> constructed from.
But is a roof "made" of tile or shingles? I would think a roof is
"covered" with tile or shingles. (Unlike the wall mentioned, which
could indeed be made of stone or stones.)
>
> I'm living now in a country where most of the rooves - uh - roofs
are
> covered in rows of red or black wavy ceramic tile. Here's a
picture:
> http://www.stalberg.nl/oud/img/dak-oost.jpg
>
> I think they use these in the UK -- are they called "tiles" there?
Old
> houses used slate, I think.
>
> But for purposes of the grammatical discussion, you can substitute
> "the floor is made of tile" or "the wall is made of tile." Do
those
> sound any better to you?
Same question for floor and wall -- "made of" or "covered with"?
But: "Tile roof" and "tile floor" sound okay to me. I'm not sure
about a "tile wall." Maybe I'm not thinking of the same type of
tile you are, or even the same type of wall.
Here (Michigan, US), most roofs are covered with shingles (asbestos
at one time, but who knows what they're made of now?). So a roof is
usually called "shingled" or simply a "roof" because everyone knows
what the material is (unless it's a tile roof, which some, but not
many, are). In southern Nevada (Las Vegas area), most roofs seem to
be tile. So would their roofs be called "tiled" or simply "roofs"
(unless they are not tiled)?
What are roofs called elsewhere? Just "roofs," because there's a
default material (or covering) and everyone would know what it is?
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I could probably spot four or five houses with a tiled roof when I
walk the dog later today. The "barrel tile" roof is very common here
in Florida on Spanish-style houses. The photograph of "residential
steep roof" at http://tinyurl.com/37rkx shows this style.
Tony Cooper
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But: "Tile roof" and "tile floor" sound okay to me. I'm not sure
>about a "tile wall." Maybe I'm not thinking of the same type of
>tile you are, or even the same type of wall.
I have tiled walls in the shower enclosure of two bathrooms. All
surfaces - ceiling, floor, and walls - are covered with tile. The
floors of the bathrooms themselves are tiled.
Skitt
> Here (Michigan, US), most roofs are covered with shingles (asbestos
> at one time, but who knows what they're made of now?). So a roof is
> usually called "shingled" or simply a "roof" because everyone knows
> what the material is (unless it's a tile roof, which some, but not
> many, are). In southern Nevada (Las Vegas area), most roofs seem to
> be tile. So would their roofs be called "tiled" or simply "roofs"
> (unless they are not tiled)?
>
> What are roofs called elsewhere? Just "roofs," because there's a
> default material (or covering) and everyone would know what it is?
Some data -- on Google "tile roof" outnumbers "tiled roof" 47,300 to 26,100,
not that it means a whole heck of a lot.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Mark Brader
>> (Except, of course, to the people who invented, or go along with,
>> the nonsensical conversion of already-established noun trademarks
>> into adjectives.)
R.H. Draney:
> *All* trademarks are adjectives, by convention...
No, that's just what they want us to think *now*. Did you read the
signature quote in my previous posting?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto It's all Henry's fault.
m...@vex.net -- Geoff Collyer
Dena Jo
> I use it exactly as Laura does, and it's certainly not applied
> only to Americans.
I say it as well.
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
Robert Lieblich
That is your punishment, Areff, for not even RSVPing No for the
November 2003 Chicago Boink, which I attended alone for lack of any
enthusiasm otherwise. Had I been able to offer the inEFFable Areff
as star attraction I'd have been able to sell tickets. But no (in
the tones of the late John Belushi), not so much as a "buzz off"
from you. My revenge commenced in early November and continues to
this day.
Wait until you see tomorrow's winds.
--
Liebs
Unrequited
Christopher Johnson
Revenge is a dish best served windy.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I don't use "Kleenex" as a generic noun, so the plural is "tissues".
> Aspirin is surely not a tradename - we buy "aspirin BP", and the
> word is both countable and non-countable depending on whether you
> are discussing the drug or the tablets. One aspirin, two aspirins.
> Some aspirins (tablets), some aspirin (the drug).
What's the consensus on "Take two aspirin(s) and call me in the
morning"? I would definitley go with "aspirin" and Googling on "take
two aspirin/aspirins" shows "aspirin" winning out 10,200 to 2,480.
I'd take "a couple of aspirin" before I'd take "a couple of
aspirins". Ditto "Tylenol", "Advil", and pretty much any other
tablet.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> > My revenge commenced in early November and continues to
> > this day.
> >
> > Wait until you see tomorrow's winds.
>
> Revenge is a dish best served windy.
And you can't get much windier than Areff and me.
ObAUE: Would anyone argue for "I" instead of "me" in that sentence?
--
Bob Lieblich
Freshening
Evan Kirshenbaum
> DE781 wrote:
>> Or, are we supposed to just call Legos "blocks" now, or something
>> gay like that that you old people wanna do?
>
> I think, Young Joey, you've hit the nail on the head, though perhaps
> unwittingly. We Americans call the Lego things "Legos" because
> there's no better term for them. They aren't "bricks" -- "brick"
> implies something generally bigger and not having the peculiar
> characteristics of a Lego thing; and they aren't "blocks" (ditto).
> Sure, we could say "Lego things", but "Legos" is more natural.
>
> If the 'Tish call the individual Lego pieces "bricks", say, I think it
> just shows that the 'Tish have a different conception of what a "brick"
> is.
I realize that it isn't the appropriate part of the part of the City
of New York called Brooklyn at the appropriate time to be of
consequence to you, but when I was growing up in Chicago in the early
'70s, they were "lego" and the individual pieces were "pieces" or
"bricks". Never "blocks".
--
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
Theodore Heise
Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> Areff <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>
>>> In AmE it has to be "Legos" /'lE,goUz/.
>>
>> I wonder if this is regional or whether the age difference between you
>> and me pins down the date of the switch. When I was growing up, it
>> was definitely "lego". Like wood, stone, and plastic, lego was a mass
>> noun. Nowadays it seems to be "legos". I hear it a lot, but it still
>> strikes me as odd whenever I do.
>
> The earliest hit for "Legos" I can find via ProQuest is an article in the
> December 11, 1977 _Washington Post_:
I can tell you that in my home in the late sixties and early
seventies (in Nebraska) we definitely called them legos.
--
Theodore Heise <th...@heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
R J Valentine
} Areff <m...@privacy.net> writes:
}
}> DE781 wrote:
}>> Or, are we supposed to just call Legos "blocks" now, or something
}>> gay like that that you old people wanna do?
}>
}> I think, Young Joey, you've hit the nail on the head, though perhaps
}> unwittingly. We Americans call the Lego things "Legos" because
}> there's no better term for them. They aren't "bricks" -- "brick"
}> implies something generally bigger and not having the peculiar
}> characteristics of a Lego thing; and they aren't "blocks" (ditto).
}> Sure, we could say "Lego things", but "Legos" is more natural.
}>
}> If the 'Tish call the individual Lego pieces "bricks", say, I think it
}> just shows that the 'Tish have a different conception of what a "brick"
}> is.
}
} I realize that it isn't the appropriate part of the part of the City
} of New York called Brooklyn at the appropriate time to be of
} consequence to you, but when I was growing up in Chicago in the early
} '70s, they were "lego" and the individual pieces were "pieces" or
} "bricks". Never "blocks".
When my kids were growing up in the Laurelplex (Fourth Largest
Metropolitan Area in America) in the early seventies, "Lego" was never
used as a mass noun or a plural, only as an adjective, and the pieces were
usually "Legos". Lego Preschool blocks were incompatible with the
ordinary Lego blocks in the days before Duplo blocks were sold. My wife,
who grew up in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, was never heard to use
"Lego" as a mass noun or as a plural.
A while ago I turned a few bushels of Legos and Duplos to my
grandchildren.
There's a place in Orlando where they sell Lego blocks in bulk, and you
can scoop out however much you need. I think there's a guy made out of
Legos sitting out front. Tony Cooper will have the details.
Say, did Rey ever play with Legos?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R J Valentine
} david56 <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> writes:
}
}> I don't use "Kleenex" as a generic noun, so the plural is "tissues".
}> Aspirin is surely not a tradename - we buy "aspirin BP", and the
}> word is both countable and non-countable depending on whether you
}> are discussing the drug or the tablets. One aspirin, two aspirins.
}> Some aspirins (tablets), some aspirin (the drug).
}
} What's the consensus on "Take two aspirin(s) and call me in the
} morning"? I would definitley go with "aspirin" and Googling on "take
} two aspirin/aspirins" shows "aspirin" winning out 10,200 to 2,480.
I, on the other hand, would definitely go with "aspirins". There's no
accounting for google.
} I'd take "a couple of aspirin" before I'd take "a couple of
} aspirins".
A little rough on the stomach lining, isn't it?
} Ditto "Tylenol", "Advil", and pretty much any other
} tablet.
Sounds like overdoing it to me. But seriously, I'd use the s-plural of
all of them. Not to do so would strike me as British.
R J Valentine
} Areff wrote:
}>
}> Christopher Johnson wrote:
}> > I don't think I'm right or wrong, Joey. There just appears
}> > to be a pondian difference involved here which has been
}> > discussed at length in this thread. Being British but
}> > living in Chicago, I find these discussions a little bit
}> > bewildering at times, as you can perhaps imagine!
}>
}> Being New Yorkish but living in Chicago, I find the notion that people can
}> tolerate 40mph winds (like those of today) a little bit bewildering at
}> times.
}
} That is your punishment, Areff, for not even RSVPing No for the
} November 2003 Chicago Boink, which I attended alone for lack of any
} enthusiasm otherwise.
Ditto for the August 2003 Chicago Symposium, where we had good bagels, but
bad pizza. As far as I know, the guy _still_ hasn't been to the bagel
place.
Dylan Nicholson
> Dylan Nicholson <wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote
> > >
> > > Seems to me there's a grammatical category here --
> > >
> > > That wall is made of stone -- That wall is made of stones.
> > > The roof is made of tile -- The roof is made of tiles.
> >
> > Don't think I've ever used or heard 'tile' used in this fashion. I
> > understand that 'shingles' is more common in AmE, when referring to
> > the type of overlapping tiles that rooves..er..roofs...are typically
> > constructed from.
>
> I'm living now in a country where most of the rooves - uh - roofs are
> covered in rows of red or black wavy ceramic tile. Here's a picture:
> http://www.stalberg.nl/oud/img/dak-oost.jpg
>
> I think they use these in the UK -- are they called "tiles" there? Old
> houses used slate, I think.
Yes, and here (in Australia). But I gather that in the US they are
generally only called 'tiles' if they are flat and don't overlap.
>
> But for purposes of the grammatical discussion, you can substitute "the
> floor is made of tile" or "the wall is made of tile." Do those sound any
> better to you?
Not to me personally, but I accept that it seems to be an accepted
usage in some parts of the world. I would say "the floor/wall is
tiled", or "it's a tile-floor" (but probably not a 'tile-wall',
presumably because it's not all that common to have an entire wall
covered in tiles - then again, it's not that uncommon in bathrooms).
Dylan
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns94CFE0B1E3AC1si...@163.1.2.7...
> DE781 wibbled
>
> > Matti Lamprhey wrote
>
> >> I think this gets to the heart of the problem. Here in Britain
> >> we're not using a plural at all when we say that something "is
> >> built of Lego" -- it's patterned on "built of balsa" rather than
> >> "built of matchsticks".
> >
> > "Lego" AIN'T a material! You can't say, "I'm wearing Lego" or my
> > dress is made from "Lego". "I built my house from Lego".
>
> On the contrary. I built a lovely house from Lego this afternoon, with
> my young cousin and his sister. See Jon's definitive quote from
> LEGO(TM) themselves as to why this *is* correct usage.
I disagree completely with the notion that the usage promoted by the Lego
people determines the correct usage of the term. Their input in the matter
is solely a legal one, which they promote to protect their trademark, and
that governs actual usage only in very narrow ways, indeed.
It's the same with other legal constrictions on usage. The term "white
chocolate" was standard in American English for many years during which the
US federal government did not allow the manufacturers of white chocolate to
label it so ("white chocolate" is now permitted in labeling in the US). And
"inflammable" as applied to materials is still a standard usage even today,
when the US federal government does not permit it to be used in labeling.
>
> > You CAN have a "lego".
>
> No, you can't. There's at least two reasons why, one of which is pure
> pedantry (but where else should this come up but aue?)
>
> > "Legos" can
> > be broken down into units. Cement, wood, plastic, etc, can't. If
> > "bricks" is countable, and a house can be made of "bricks", how
> > come a toy house can't be made of "Legos"?
>
> Never heard of a brick [s**t]house?
>
> Jac
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Mark Brader
> } What's the consensus on "Take two aspirin(s) and call me in the
R.J. Valentine:
> I, on the other hand, would definitely go with "aspirins".
Same here. Well, in my case it'd be Aspirins, since it's still a
trademark in Canada, but that doesn't affect the rule: count noun with
standard pluralization for the pills, mass noun for the drug contained.
Two regular Aspirins contain 650 mg of Aspirin.
And I don't say "two beer" either.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We did not try to keep writing until
m...@vex.net | things got full." --Dennis Ritchie
Charles Riggs
>david56 wrote:
>> Aspirin is surely not a tradename - we buy "aspirin BP", and the word
>> is both countable and non-countable depending on whether you are
>> discussing the drug or the tablets. One aspirin, two aspirins. Some
>> aspirins (tablets), some aspirin (the drug).
>
>Aspirin is one example of a trademarked term that became genericized (in
>the _de jure_ sense) in the US, or whatever the verb is. (It's still a
>trademark in some countries IIRC.)
Some Americans down on the farm will still insist Bayer's Aspirin is
better than the others, if they're even aware there are others,
Bayer's advertising campaign was so convincing.
--
Charles Riggs
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Charles Riggs
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What are roofs called elsewhere?
Roofs. (If a thatched roof, the identifier is specified in now-modern,
relatively speaking, Ireland.)