Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

gjsmothefirst

no avatar Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Offline
Send mail to gjsmothefirst Block gjsmothefirst Invite gjsmothefirst to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/12/2012
Last Login:2/01/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1316 total,  1611 ,  295
Comment Thumbs: 975 total,  1417 ,  442
Content Level Progress: 15% (15/100)
Level 113 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:82101
Times Content Favorited:108 times
Total Comments Made:646
FJ Points:2322
Favorite Tags: tags (3) | no (2)

latest user's comments

#22 - I just presented you the argument, dumbass. Really, I…  [+] (18 new replies) 04/13/2013 on Parents just don't... 0
User avatar #23 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
No, you didn't present an argument, you made a statement about how you say the two words I used as an example.

What rules did you specifically follow by the way to get to your conclusion?
#25 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
That's called an argument, actually... take a debate class maybe.

Well, brick is pluralized as bricks, since it's a regular English noun.
"Lego" doesn't end in a consonant that conflicts with "s", therefore the plural would be "Legos" and not "Legoes".
"Lego brick" is often shortened to "lego" (not a rule per se, but more a statement of fact).
User avatar #29 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
All correct there apart from the fact Lego doesn't pluralize to Legos, just like sheep doesn't pluralize to sheeps, because it is a Mass Noun as explained in comment 17
User avatar #37 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
Sheep isn't a mass noun.

You can count them.
User avatar #41 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I know, I meant Lego is a mass noun, not sheep, I should have put it in brackets or something to try and make it clearer what I meant, I was saying you don't put an S on because it is a mass noun, and separately, you also don't put an S on sheep
User avatar #38 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
They help you sleep.
User avatar #33 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
This whole thread:

WHO FUCKING CARES?

If you want to call it Lego, that's fine, if the vast majority or the population wants to call them Legos, you can't stop them.
User avatar #39 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I care, that was the whole point, its one of those things that just gets me.

Everyone has something that just rustles them, and this is mine.

Also, just saying, calling it Legos is the minority, most people say Lego (I presume that you meant " if the vast majority of the population wants to call them Legos", so just to let you know, the vast majority don't)
User avatar #40 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Well to be fair we are both making assumptions of that based on what is the norm for our social groups. This thread is the first I've ever heard Lego be stated as the plural. But seeing as there aren't statistics on whether the world prefers to call it Lego or Legos, both of our points are moot in that effect.
User avatar #44 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
I believe you mean 'mute'.

A 'moot' point actually means a matter that requires or demands discussion and debate, whilst a 'mute' point is a point that has become irrelevant.

A mistake made common by a misunderstanding of the character Sheldon Cooper's Texan accent in the programme The Big Bang Theory, as he pronounces both words with little or no difference between them.
User avatar #52 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Also for you, because it annoyed me that you corrected my word usage incorrectly.

"
Moot vs. mute

As an adjective, moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate. But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical. This usage arose out of an exercise in U.S. law schools involving the discussion of “moot” cases to practice argumentation.

In the common phrase moot point, moot means (1) of no importance or (2) merely hypothetical. This is where moot most often gets confused with the adjective mute, which means (1) refraining from making sound or (2) silent.

Moot also has a verb definition—to bring up for debate—that is almost nonexistent in American English and rare in British English." grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/
User avatar #50 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Also, I've never watched that show.
User avatar #48 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
No, I mean moot.



Idioms & Phrases
"
moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics , or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first . This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot , or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense. " dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot+point
User avatar #43 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
well having not spoken to people from everywhere, just going of google here, pretty much the only country I can find in the world that says "Legos" is America, pretty much every other country appears to say Lego.

Then again, I don't speak most of the languages in the rest of the world, so I don't know how there language rules work, but as far as I can see, i've not found an S on it in any other language (or in any other English speaking countries)
User avatar #45 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
I'm not saying Legos is correct, just that it is used, so it would technically be slang. Which I have no issue with, language is boring when you rigidly stick to the rules. I cannot say for any country but my own, but Legos has become the accepted standard. Interesting tidbit for you, when slang becomes wide spread and generally accepted the language usually adapts and makes it correct.
User avatar #34 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
of the population* my bad.
#31 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
Yet I've never once heard plural "Lego".
I'm American BTW, maybe this is why - we do a few things differently (not necessarily better) here. I don't use it as a mass noun, and most people I know actually do count Legos...
User avatar #32 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
Well that would explain it, i'm pretty sure America is the only county in the world to use "Legos" (apart from maybe a few little islands, etc)

All i'm saying is, grammatically, it should really be Lego
#14 - Well, first, two oxygen molecules is referred to as two oxygen…  [+] (31 new replies) 04/13/2013 on Parents just don't... +2
#17 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
'LEGO' is used in as a mass noun in the English language.

Count nouns are words such as 'table(s)', 'orange(s)' and brick(s).

Mass nouns are words like 'powder', 'sand' and 'water'.

Some examples exist where such nouns can be used in both ways. If you had powdered sugar and powdered calcium, you might say you have two powders before you. Believe it or not, the word has changed completely, and now 'powder(s)' is being used to describe a superordinate category of nouns, and not a standard concrete noun. Because of this, they is classed in linguistics as two separate, independent words.

The fact of the matter is that 'LEGO' was originally a complement to the head noun 'brick' in the compound noun 'LEGO brick'. Because 'LEGO' was only ever used (aside from when referring to the company) in conjunction with another, superordinate noun, and it is a natural reaction for the brain (if it wants to use it as a noun) to make it a mass noun rather than a count noun.

Also, LEGO is usually presented in quantities that make counting it impractical, so much like water, we make it a mass noun for the sake of ease.

In conclusion, some people say 'LEGOs', some people say 'LEGO', although the latter was indeed the original and what a majority of people use throughout Europe where LEGO was born.

Trust me, I'm a linguist.
-
P.S. See 'sheep' and 'fish' for a separate argument.
#24 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
Hmm. An interesting argument. I must respect the fact that you are a linguist (I'll accept it without proof).

However, I don't use it as a mass noun. As a matter of fact, I count Legos quite often. I have 5 Lego? I have 5 Lego? It's referring to the number of bricks - and now we're calling a Lego a specific kind of brick. Should the rules then be based off of LEGO (a trademark, not actually referring to any concrete object, but a company), or brick?
User avatar #26 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
As I said, some use it as a count noun, but unfortunately I don't know when exactly the first time someone uttered it with standardised pluralisation of the word, but it is generally considered to be an Americanism as the standardised version does not appear in any significant amount outside of the US.
#28 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
I see British spelling...
Well, let's put it this way then - here in the US, I don't know anyone, including any English teacher that's talked about his/her kids, that refers to Lego as plural. At this point, it's almost (but not quite) a generalized word, separate from the brand (there's a name for that, I don't know what it is). Kids grow up saying "Legos", parents say "Legos", even most professional things involving them (conventions etc.) refer to "Legos". It may be technically improper, but trying to change it futile - it'd be like saying our use of "ize" is wrong.
User avatar #20 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
So if I had a collection of Barbie dolls but I wanted to drop the "dolls", would I just say "I have a collection of Barbie"? No. I would just say "Barbies".

Side note; how do rules for the English language apply to non-English words?
User avatar #21 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
The difference with 'Barbie' is that the doll is an effigy of a fictional woman called 'Barbie', and proper nouns stemming from sentiment (such as names for people or pets) can be pluralised (in most circumstances). 'LEGO' does not fall into this category and as such does not have the same rules applied to it.

Side answer: the word is being used in a context that demands English rules, which can (and does) occur with examples from other languages, and nine times out of ten these are used as compound nouns (e.g. 'je ne sais qua') or idioms (e.g. 'quelle surprise').
User avatar #27 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
Well, how are you looking at this. Because Lego is short for the Danish phrash "leg dogt" which means play well. Technically, Lego is a verb and an adverb, so you shouldn't call it just "Lego" in the first place. You'd say Lego blocks/bricks. The whole thing. Otherwise, you'd just have an incomplete phrase. But that's if you look at where the word came from. Similarly to what you did with Barbie. However, if you think about it as a brand name, its fine with the "s" at the end. Like Oreo cookies, or colloquially, "Oreos".
User avatar #36 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
The number of factors that have to be taken into account are too numerous and too complicated to explain on here without considerable effort on my part, so I'll do my best to sum up as simply as I can:

Barbies and Oreos are usually presented in easily countable quantities, and are usually presented in an order that makes them easy to count - results in a standard pluralisation from the complement.

'Barbie' is not only the brand but also the name of the doll itself, in the same way one would name a pet or another person or favourite pair of shoes - results in a standard pluralisation because the pluralised noun stems from the name the doll owns rather than the complement.

LEGO by its very nature is presented in quantities that are impractical to count - even dozens baffles the average human mind, and it knows that the number is not wholly important, and would take a long time to confirm, so it decides not to bother - results in a mass noun.

The US standardisation (although many would deny it) probably stems from overgeneralised usage from children, which was not corrected and thusly spread throughout subsequent generations and peers who did not know what the correct usage was. This is a staggeringly common occurrence and accounts for a lot of modern language.


All in all, language changes through ignorance amongst other things.
User avatar #42 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
So at what point does countable become uncountable? How do you know there aren't more Oreos in the word than "Lego"? Also, the most major issue I can see with calling it Lego, is because its the company's name. A lot would get confused if you said that, think that you were referring to the company rather than the product. Also, in one set of "Lego" there are many types of bricks. You'd have to say "Legos" if you were talking about all of them. If I asked someone to hand me my old, childhood box of Legos (pretty much every set that came out within a 5 year period, Bionicles and all), I'd just refer to it as Legos, both because its now a general term for any Lego product and anything similar to them. For example, they might not be Band-Aid brand band-aids, but they're still band-aids. Or Hoover brand hoovers here in England.
User avatar #47 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I think its safe to say there is more Lego in the world than there are Oreos, as Oreos are consumable, so there is probably a roughly flat amount in the world (for every one produced, one is eaten/destroyed etc), whereas Lego not only lasts much longer, but is also much cheaper and easier to produce.

I would be willing to bet you IRL money there is much more Lego in the world than there are Oreos.
User avatar #49 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
You missed every question and went straight to the rhetorical one.
User avatar #15 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
No, that's not how language works, how is it at all. "Oh look, here is a set of rules on how to pluralize this particular word, hmm, interesting, fuck that, lets say Legos instead."

There is no argument for it to be Legos, there are countless arguments for it to be Lego.

And by the way, I do know English, I also live with someone doing an English language degree, he also agrees, Lego is the correct plural.
#22 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
I just presented you the argument, dumbass.

Really, I just followed the rules that actually *do* exist, and it worked. I don't see how I'm ignoring them.
User avatar #23 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
No, you didn't present an argument, you made a statement about how you say the two words I used as an example.

What rules did you specifically follow by the way to get to your conclusion?
#25 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
That's called an argument, actually... take a debate class maybe.

Well, brick is pluralized as bricks, since it's a regular English noun.
"Lego" doesn't end in a consonant that conflicts with "s", therefore the plural would be "Legos" and not "Legoes".
"Lego brick" is often shortened to "lego" (not a rule per se, but more a statement of fact).
User avatar #29 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
All correct there apart from the fact Lego doesn't pluralize to Legos, just like sheep doesn't pluralize to sheeps, because it is a Mass Noun as explained in comment 17
User avatar #37 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
Sheep isn't a mass noun.

You can count them.
User avatar #41 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I know, I meant Lego is a mass noun, not sheep, I should have put it in brackets or something to try and make it clearer what I meant, I was saying you don't put an S on because it is a mass noun, and separately, you also don't put an S on sheep
User avatar #38 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
They help you sleep.
User avatar #33 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
This whole thread:

WHO FUCKING CARES?

If you want to call it Lego, that's fine, if the vast majority or the population wants to call them Legos, you can't stop them.
User avatar #39 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I care, that was the whole point, its one of those things that just gets me.

Everyone has something that just rustles them, and this is mine.

Also, just saying, calling it Legos is the minority, most people say Lego (I presume that you meant " if the vast majority of the population wants to call them Legos", so just to let you know, the vast majority don't)
User avatar #40 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Well to be fair we are both making assumptions of that based on what is the norm for our social groups. This thread is the first I've ever heard Lego be stated as the plural. But seeing as there aren't statistics on whether the world prefers to call it Lego or Legos, both of our points are moot in that effect.
User avatar #44 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
I believe you mean 'mute'.

A 'moot' point actually means a matter that requires or demands discussion and debate, whilst a 'mute' point is a point that has become irrelevant.

A mistake made common by a misunderstanding of the character Sheldon Cooper's Texan accent in the programme The Big Bang Theory, as he pronounces both words with little or no difference between them.
User avatar #52 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Also for you, because it annoyed me that you corrected my word usage incorrectly.

"
Moot vs. mute

As an adjective, moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate. But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical. This usage arose out of an exercise in U.S. law schools involving the discussion of “moot” cases to practice argumentation.

In the common phrase moot point, moot means (1) of no importance or (2) merely hypothetical. This is where moot most often gets confused with the adjective mute, which means (1) refraining from making sound or (2) silent.

Moot also has a verb definition—to bring up for debate—that is almost nonexistent in American English and rare in British English." grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/
User avatar #50 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Also, I've never watched that show.
User avatar #48 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
No, I mean moot.



Idioms & Phrases
"
moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics , or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first . This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot , or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense. " dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot+point
User avatar #43 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
well having not spoken to people from everywhere, just going of google here, pretty much the only country I can find in the world that says "Legos" is America, pretty much every other country appears to say Lego.

Then again, I don't speak most of the languages in the rest of the world, so I don't know how there language rules work, but as far as I can see, i've not found an S on it in any other language (or in any other English speaking countries)
User avatar #45 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
I'm not saying Legos is correct, just that it is used, so it would technically be slang. Which I have no issue with, language is boring when you rigidly stick to the rules. I cannot say for any country but my own, but Legos has become the accepted standard. Interesting tidbit for you, when slang becomes wide spread and generally accepted the language usually adapts and makes it correct.
User avatar #34 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
of the population* my bad.
#31 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
Yet I've never once heard plural "Lego".
I'm American BTW, maybe this is why - we do a few things differently (not necessarily better) here. I don't use it as a mass noun, and most people I know actually do count Legos...
User avatar #32 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
Well that would explain it, i'm pretty sure America is the only county in the world to use "Legos" (apart from maybe a few little islands, etc)

All i'm saying is, grammatically, it should really be Lego
#9 - One Lego block. Two Lego blocks. "Lego block…  [+] (35 new replies) 04/13/2013 on Parents just don't... 0
User avatar #13 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
By that logic, you shorten 2 pieces of music to 2 musics, or 2 oxygens, or several furnitures.

Quite simply, thats not how language works
User avatar #16 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, but you don't call a piece of music a "music" in the first place, so your tautology is wrong. Furniture is already a word that encompasses all furnishings. Like how literature is anything of the literary world. But Lego is a brand name. There isn't a specific way to say it because it isn't a real word. But there's no reason that you wouldn't add an "s" to the end of Lego to pluralize it. It still works.
User avatar #18 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
There we go, I was waiting for that response. Go read comment 17.
#14 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
Well, first, two oxygen molecules is referred to as two oxygens (learned that in elementary chemistry), and secondly, I don't usually refer to a "piece of music" as just "a music". I'm still right.

Quite simply, this is EXACTLY how language works (with occasional exceptions). Maybe you should take a class in language, or learn it first.
#17 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
'LEGO' is used in as a mass noun in the English language.

Count nouns are words such as 'table(s)', 'orange(s)' and brick(s).

Mass nouns are words like 'powder', 'sand' and 'water'.

Some examples exist where such nouns can be used in both ways. If you had powdered sugar and powdered calcium, you might say you have two powders before you. Believe it or not, the word has changed completely, and now 'powder(s)' is being used to describe a superordinate category of nouns, and not a standard concrete noun. Because of this, they is classed in linguistics as two separate, independent words.

The fact of the matter is that 'LEGO' was originally a complement to the head noun 'brick' in the compound noun 'LEGO brick'. Because 'LEGO' was only ever used (aside from when referring to the company) in conjunction with another, superordinate noun, and it is a natural reaction for the brain (if it wants to use it as a noun) to make it a mass noun rather than a count noun.

Also, LEGO is usually presented in quantities that make counting it impractical, so much like water, we make it a mass noun for the sake of ease.

In conclusion, some people say 'LEGOs', some people say 'LEGO', although the latter was indeed the original and what a majority of people use throughout Europe where LEGO was born.

Trust me, I'm a linguist.
-
P.S. See 'sheep' and 'fish' for a separate argument.
#24 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
Hmm. An interesting argument. I must respect the fact that you are a linguist (I'll accept it without proof).

However, I don't use it as a mass noun. As a matter of fact, I count Legos quite often. I have 5 Lego? I have 5 Lego? It's referring to the number of bricks - and now we're calling a Lego a specific kind of brick. Should the rules then be based off of LEGO (a trademark, not actually referring to any concrete object, but a company), or brick?
User avatar #26 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
As I said, some use it as a count noun, but unfortunately I don't know when exactly the first time someone uttered it with standardised pluralisation of the word, but it is generally considered to be an Americanism as the standardised version does not appear in any significant amount outside of the US.
#28 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
I see British spelling...
Well, let's put it this way then - here in the US, I don't know anyone, including any English teacher that's talked about his/her kids, that refers to Lego as plural. At this point, it's almost (but not quite) a generalized word, separate from the brand (there's a name for that, I don't know what it is). Kids grow up saying "Legos", parents say "Legos", even most professional things involving them (conventions etc.) refer to "Legos". It may be technically improper, but trying to change it futile - it'd be like saying our use of "ize" is wrong.
User avatar #20 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
So if I had a collection of Barbie dolls but I wanted to drop the "dolls", would I just say "I have a collection of Barbie"? No. I would just say "Barbies".

Side note; how do rules for the English language apply to non-English words?
User avatar #21 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
The difference with 'Barbie' is that the doll is an effigy of a fictional woman called 'Barbie', and proper nouns stemming from sentiment (such as names for people or pets) can be pluralised (in most circumstances). 'LEGO' does not fall into this category and as such does not have the same rules applied to it.

Side answer: the word is being used in a context that demands English rules, which can (and does) occur with examples from other languages, and nine times out of ten these are used as compound nouns (e.g. 'je ne sais qua') or idioms (e.g. 'quelle surprise').
User avatar #27 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
Well, how are you looking at this. Because Lego is short for the Danish phrash "leg dogt" which means play well. Technically, Lego is a verb and an adverb, so you shouldn't call it just "Lego" in the first place. You'd say Lego blocks/bricks. The whole thing. Otherwise, you'd just have an incomplete phrase. But that's if you look at where the word came from. Similarly to what you did with Barbie. However, if you think about it as a brand name, its fine with the "s" at the end. Like Oreo cookies, or colloquially, "Oreos".
User avatar #36 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
The number of factors that have to be taken into account are too numerous and too complicated to explain on here without considerable effort on my part, so I'll do my best to sum up as simply as I can:

Barbies and Oreos are usually presented in easily countable quantities, and are usually presented in an order that makes them easy to count - results in a standard pluralisation from the complement.

'Barbie' is not only the brand but also the name of the doll itself, in the same way one would name a pet or another person or favourite pair of shoes - results in a standard pluralisation because the pluralised noun stems from the name the doll owns rather than the complement.

LEGO by its very nature is presented in quantities that are impractical to count - even dozens baffles the average human mind, and it knows that the number is not wholly important, and would take a long time to confirm, so it decides not to bother - results in a mass noun.

The US standardisation (although many would deny it) probably stems from overgeneralised usage from children, which was not corrected and thusly spread throughout subsequent generations and peers who did not know what the correct usage was. This is a staggeringly common occurrence and accounts for a lot of modern language.


All in all, language changes through ignorance amongst other things.
User avatar #42 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
So at what point does countable become uncountable? How do you know there aren't more Oreos in the word than "Lego"? Also, the most major issue I can see with calling it Lego, is because its the company's name. A lot would get confused if you said that, think that you were referring to the company rather than the product. Also, in one set of "Lego" there are many types of bricks. You'd have to say "Legos" if you were talking about all of them. If I asked someone to hand me my old, childhood box of Legos (pretty much every set that came out within a 5 year period, Bionicles and all), I'd just refer to it as Legos, both because its now a general term for any Lego product and anything similar to them. For example, they might not be Band-Aid brand band-aids, but they're still band-aids. Or Hoover brand hoovers here in England.
User avatar #47 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I think its safe to say there is more Lego in the world than there are Oreos, as Oreos are consumable, so there is probably a roughly flat amount in the world (for every one produced, one is eaten/destroyed etc), whereas Lego not only lasts much longer, but is also much cheaper and easier to produce.

I would be willing to bet you IRL money there is much more Lego in the world than there are Oreos.
User avatar #49 - TastyBurger (04/13/2013) [-]
You missed every question and went straight to the rhetorical one.
User avatar #15 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
No, that's not how language works, how is it at all. "Oh look, here is a set of rules on how to pluralize this particular word, hmm, interesting, fuck that, lets say Legos instead."

There is no argument for it to be Legos, there are countless arguments for it to be Lego.

And by the way, I do know English, I also live with someone doing an English language degree, he also agrees, Lego is the correct plural.
#22 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
I just presented you the argument, dumbass.

Really, I just followed the rules that actually *do* exist, and it worked. I don't see how I'm ignoring them.
User avatar #23 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
No, you didn't present an argument, you made a statement about how you say the two words I used as an example.

What rules did you specifically follow by the way to get to your conclusion?
#25 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
That's called an argument, actually... take a debate class maybe.

Well, brick is pluralized as bricks, since it's a regular English noun.
"Lego" doesn't end in a consonant that conflicts with "s", therefore the plural would be "Legos" and not "Legoes".
"Lego brick" is often shortened to "lego" (not a rule per se, but more a statement of fact).
User avatar #29 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
All correct there apart from the fact Lego doesn't pluralize to Legos, just like sheep doesn't pluralize to sheeps, because it is a Mass Noun as explained in comment 17
User avatar #37 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
Sheep isn't a mass noun.

You can count them.
User avatar #41 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I know, I meant Lego is a mass noun, not sheep, I should have put it in brackets or something to try and make it clearer what I meant, I was saying you don't put an S on because it is a mass noun, and separately, you also don't put an S on sheep
User avatar #38 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
They help you sleep.
User avatar #33 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
This whole thread:

WHO FUCKING CARES?

If you want to call it Lego, that's fine, if the vast majority or the population wants to call them Legos, you can't stop them.
User avatar #39 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
I care, that was the whole point, its one of those things that just gets me.

Everyone has something that just rustles them, and this is mine.

Also, just saying, calling it Legos is the minority, most people say Lego (I presume that you meant " if the vast majority of the population wants to call them Legos", so just to let you know, the vast majority don't)
User avatar #40 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Well to be fair we are both making assumptions of that based on what is the norm for our social groups. This thread is the first I've ever heard Lego be stated as the plural. But seeing as there aren't statistics on whether the world prefers to call it Lego or Legos, both of our points are moot in that effect.
User avatar #44 - honestchap (04/13/2013) [-]
I believe you mean 'mute'.

A 'moot' point actually means a matter that requires or demands discussion and debate, whilst a 'mute' point is a point that has become irrelevant.

A mistake made common by a misunderstanding of the character Sheldon Cooper's Texan accent in the programme The Big Bang Theory, as he pronounces both words with little or no difference between them.
User avatar #52 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Also for you, because it annoyed me that you corrected my word usage incorrectly.

"
Moot vs. mute

As an adjective, moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate. But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical. This usage arose out of an exercise in U.S. law schools involving the discussion of “moot” cases to practice argumentation.

In the common phrase moot point, moot means (1) of no importance or (2) merely hypothetical. This is where moot most often gets confused with the adjective mute, which means (1) refraining from making sound or (2) silent.

Moot also has a verb definition—to bring up for debate—that is almost nonexistent in American English and rare in British English." grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/
User avatar #50 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
Also, I've never watched that show.
User avatar #48 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
No, I mean moot.



Idioms & Phrases
"
moot point

A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance. For example, Whether Shakespeare actually wrote the poem remains a moot point among critics , or It's a moot point whether the chicken or the egg came first . This term originated in British law where it described a point for discussion in a moot , or assembly, of law students. By the early 1700s it was being used more loosely in the present sense. " dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot+point
User avatar #43 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
well having not spoken to people from everywhere, just going of google here, pretty much the only country I can find in the world that says "Legos" is America, pretty much every other country appears to say Lego.

Then again, I don't speak most of the languages in the rest of the world, so I don't know how there language rules work, but as far as I can see, i've not found an S on it in any other language (or in any other English speaking countries)
User avatar #45 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
I'm not saying Legos is correct, just that it is used, so it would technically be slang. Which I have no issue with, language is boring when you rigidly stick to the rules. I cannot say for any country but my own, but Legos has become the accepted standard. Interesting tidbit for you, when slang becomes wide spread and generally accepted the language usually adapts and makes it correct.
User avatar #34 - vatra (04/13/2013) [-]
of the population* my bad.
#31 - gjsmothefirst (04/13/2013) [-]
Yet I've never once heard plural "Lego".
I'm American BTW, maybe this is why - we do a few things differently (not necessarily better) here. I don't use it as a mass noun, and most people I know actually do count Legos...
User avatar #32 - eddymolly (04/13/2013) [-]
Well that would explain it, i'm pretty sure America is the only county in the world to use "Legos" (apart from maybe a few little islands, etc)

All i'm saying is, grammatically, it should really be Lego
#32 - FRAPS. FRAPS. FRAPS.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/13/2013 on Minecraft +4
User avatar #58 - trollofhalo (04/13/2013) [-]
Thanks, I'll give it a run!
#48 - THAT WAS THE LAST ONE! YOU BLEW IT KIM! 04/12/2013 on When North Korea launch... 0
#39 - In Soviet Russia, blinker flashes you. wut. 04/09/2013 on Meanwhile in Russia 0
#137 - FYI, neither of those is open-source. Linux is properly open-s…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/07/2013 on macs +2
User avatar #139 - durkadurka (04/07/2013) [-]
I was making more of a reference to google's android (been doing a lot of reading about smartphones and such).
#126 - I'll say this once only, same as every Mac vs. PC argument. …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/07/2013 on macs +3
User avatar #134 - durkadurka (04/07/2013) [-]
I'll take the open source, "do whatever you want with your tech" mentality over the "do it our way" mentality any day.
#137 - gjsmothefirst (04/07/2013) [-]
FYI, neither of those is open-source. Linux is properly open-source, though.

To each his own though.
User avatar #139 - durkadurka (04/07/2013) [-]
I was making more of a reference to google's android (been doing a lot of reading about smartphones and such).
#41 - DAAADD WHERE'S MAH IG JOES??!! 04/06/2013 on Dear Satan +6
#40 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 04/06/2013 on Dear Satan -5
User avatar #123 - djequalizee (04/06/2013) [-]
I think you need a new pair of spectacles
#15 - WHY WOULD YOU THUMB THIS GENIUS DOWN?! 04/06/2013 on hey there 0
#50 - There is no spoon.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/04/2013 on Being chased? Do the same... +11
User avatar #51 - crazyolitis (04/04/2013) [-]
Only Zuul?
#20 - ... besides the fact that it's actually a 25-pin RS-232 (not p… 03/28/2013 on There is always a way +1
#43 - He might actually be right... Just like "family"…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/25/2013 on McFucked +3
User avatar #65 - Bion (03/25/2013) [-]
What if it's the quotum for McChickens and the quotum for McDubbles?
#62 - Comment deleted 03/18/2013 on 1989 vision of the future +2
#64 - Can I borrow some shredded boomslang skin, Professor? 03/16/2013 on Rattlesnake venom vs blood +3
#43 - As a drummer, thank you for thinking. 03/10/2013 on 10/10 would bang +2
#732 - '71 Stingray, man. 71 STINGRAY.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/05/2013 on nothin new +1
#736 - datsheriff (03/05/2013) [-]
I'd give my right nut to drive that beast...
#89 - Motorola: We invented it and made it smaller. Blackberry: …  [+] (2 new replies) 03/02/2013 on Evolution of the cell phone -2
User avatar #113 - timmywankenobi (03/03/2013) [-]
Fixed*
Motorola: We invented it and made it smaller.
Blackberry: Look at how many buttons I still have.
Nokia: Bonus hammer included in purchase.
Apple: We pretty much stole the best or most desired parts of the other companies devices no need to innovate ever !
Fisher-Price: OOH PRETTY COLORS!!!!
#130 - anonymous (03/03/2013) [-]
that's Apple's attitude towards it.
I mean, sure, there are some fanboys, but I think gjsmothefirst's comment was meant to be from the manufacturer's point of view.
#209 - Light the village well and put a cobblestone wall around it.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/24/2013 on Enderman 0
User avatar #220 - thepalmtoptiger (02/24/2013) [-]
I guess that could work.
#184 - no, but they most certainly will step on the pressure plate yo…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/24/2013 on Enderman 0
User avatar #205 - thepalmtoptiger (02/24/2013) [-]
So will the zombies =/
#209 - gjsmothefirst (02/24/2013) [-]
Light the village well and put a cobblestone wall around it.
User avatar #220 - thepalmtoptiger (02/24/2013) [-]
I guess that could work.
#74 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 02/23/2013 on Churned Dairy Beverage 0
#75 - darlingdo Comment deleted by gjsmothefirst
#35 - Nah, I'll look better. Probably because of all the drugs I di…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/20/2013 on ZOMBIEESS!!! -1
User avatar #47 - captainromance (02/20/2013) [-]
convincing yourself is the first step. that just means you'll look like shit AND had a shitty life
#28 - Different actors. All have a silenced Walther PPK.  [+] (3 new replies) 02/18/2013 on Some quality Bonding time +3
#30 - bobbybeats (02/18/2013) [-]
In the first one it wasn't that gun. A fan wrote a leter to the creator saying that it was a girl gun so he recommended a real mans gun.
User avatar #33 - bobthedilder (02/18/2013) [-]
He had a Beretta M1934 at the start of the film (Dr. No) and they gave him the PPK after the prologue. M wanted Bond to have a powerful gun.
User avatar #72 - bobbybeats (02/19/2013) [-]
I think i might of been the books that he didn't have the ppk. I haven't seen the first movies since i was like 14 with the exception of from russia with love.
#264 - if what were true? That you can do the same things on both? …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/17/2013 on NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700 0
User avatar #265 - lmaopwnt (02/17/2013) [-]
Browsing a website and gaming aren't exactly the same thing, if we were talking JUST games on steam and such, yea it'd be just as easy. but were not talking about steam, were talking stand-alone games like minecraft, which can be a pain in the ass to make your own private server if you don't know anything about a computer, I know that because it took me half a fucking hour + a youtube video tutorial to figure it out. And then comes mods and texture packs, texture packs are pretty easy, but I've never figured out how to install a mod on minecraft despite the fact that I've been playing minecraft for well over a year now.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 950

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)