> Lego (not legos)
Actually, "Lego® bricks." Lego severely admonishes using their name as a noun, whether pluralized or not. But, due to that admonishment and a thing called reactance[1], I was being purposefully breezy with my language. :)
Actually, "Lego® bricks." Lego severely admonishes using their name as a noun, whether pluralized or not. But, due to that admonishment and a thing called reactance[1], I was being purposefully breezy with my language. :)
I remember one company whose marketing department demanded that every mention of our product be in the assigned font, bolded, with part of the name subscripted and ®'d. Even in support emails. Even in followups. They never saw just how amazingly artificial it was and how it actually created (mild) barriers to rapport with users. Needless to say, everyone in sales and support that had a clue decided to put that directive into the round file.
PS It's maths, not math.
On the one hand you have 'Meccano', 'Playmobile' and similar, when referring to collections of brand items.
But on the other hand, you would refer to a single brand car park as 'Toyotas' or a collection of single brand laptops as 'Lenovos' without anyone batting an eye.
I'm with you - 'legos' sounds stupid to me - but really I need someone more formally trained in grammar for this one :)
Perhaps in these oft-cited days of lego sets that are more like a few big pieces than lots of little pieces, people will start to think differently.
I guess in American they don't treat it as a mass noun, and maybe they say "a lego" instead of "a piece of lego".
:D