Talk:lego

Legere or Legare?
According to this, legere and legare are Latin both infinitive forms of lego. legere is translated as "to collect/gather/steal" while legare is "to connect/join/bind/unite". I can see a certain similarity in meaning between "gather" and "unite", but are the terms actually synonymous? legere and legare do not reference each other directly, and only both link to lego - so it seems equally likely that one of these links is wrong. 212.121.153.12 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to my Latin dictionary, they are both correct. SemperBlotto 15:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

English form - LEGO
I'm not sure the way the english form is displayed here is correct. It should probably link to the LEGO article, as this is what it's referring to.

Additionally, it lists a plural form of 'legos', which when referring to the LEGO product is limited only to American-English, and not recognised globally or by the LEGO company itself.


 * See lego. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass noun
The Oxford English Dictionary (online version) has Lego as a mass noun. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Lego?q=lego ) Shouldn't this information be added? Doesn't this rule out a plural of "Legos"? (Controversial as this may be in the US...) 86.4.242.105 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See lego. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Legos?
Can we please remove the plural form Legos or at least make clear that this is an Americanism. This is utterly incorrect. Outside of episodes of the simpsons I have never heard anyone refer to pieces of lego as legos.
 * I can find legos in contemporary UK newspapers. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See lego. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

LEGO is the plural of LEGO. The brand owner also forbids the use of the word LEGOs as incorrect, see page 24 of the official company report http://cache.lego.com/r/aboutus/-/media/About%20Us/Company%20Profile/ts.20120420T123711.Company_profile_uk.pdf Tiggertim (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The company has no control over how English speakers actually use the name of their produ. Since we're a descriptive dictionary, we have to document the forms in actual use, not follow the instructions of the company. That's not to say we should ignore the facts about which forms are considered correct, but it should be in the form of usage labels and notes, not in whether we include a plural form in -s. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "we have to document the forms in actual use" Is that serious? Because you'd better start documenting the new use of 'of' as a synonym for 'have' as the entire internet is butchering the language with things like "should of done this" and "could of done that". Errors propagated in ignorance have shaped English language, but that doesn't mean dictionaries can use it as an excuse to willfully participate in an ignorance when you're in a position to know better and have implicitly taken up an instructional role in the language. 178.248.30.132 11:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * should of, would of, could of —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Legos" is indeed an Americanism and I agree it should be noted as such.   118.208.218.217 11:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)