LEGOs — Is the Plural form of LEGO incorrect?

kellyjohnj wrote:
> begs the question
"Begs the question" doesn't mean "to raise a question" or to "beg a question to be asked" rather it is a logical fallacy, petitio principii where the argument assumes the premise.

In symbolic logic, one might "beg the question" by writing:

P and Q imply P
where P and Q are symbols for propositions.

Here the conclusion is explicit in the premise.

Wikipedia says, "The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".

Speaking of vehicles, do you say Ford Focuses or Foci? The latter always sounded a bit off to me.

Focuses. As for the plural of Lexus, I can't imagine I'll ever be in that financial league.

Gee, sorry I opened up such a can of worms! How funny, but according to their official use of terms, you are right! And now, we know.

Goofy, perhaps tip is not an acronym, but definitely a backronym. By the way, I've also heard it as "to insure perfection".

No, it's not a backronym either. The OED says its from thieves cant, ultimate origin unknown.

No, it's not a backronym either. The OED says its from thieves cant, ultimate origin unknown.

OK, I see. But "tip" isn't the backronym, "to insure promptness" is the backronym.

Wikipedia notwithstanding, most of the dictionaries and other sources I have checked say that the word itself is the backronym. Some suggest that either the word or the phrase could both be considered the backronym. And, just to play devil's advocate here, in cases like "tip", with a false etymology, does the etymology really matter? One could make a case for saying that "tip" is an acronym for "to insure promptness" regardless of its etymology. It certainly can be "...formed from the initial letters..."

Does the etymology really matter?? Tsk tsk...

Think of sheep. You see one sheep, you say "I saw a sheep".

You see multiple sheep, you don't say "I saw some sheeps" you say "I saw some sheep".

Apply that to LEGO. "I have one LEGO Brick" or "I have some LEGO". That's how this works. "Legos" doesn't sound right at all.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure people have brought up, this is an American term that seems to get tossed around a lot, and the rest of us around the world are left to wonder "what?" because it's just plain wrong. LEGO themselves have shown that it's just plain wrong.

The horrible thing is, instead of accepting that it is wrong, people who do use the term "Legos" will defend their use of it to the death. There has never been any harm in sitting down and saying "you're right, it's wrong". I've done it hundreds of times when I've been wrong. People need to accept that "Legos" is wrong, just as you wouldn't say "sheeps".

Frank35, when it comes to language, we determine what is "right" by looking at how the language is used. If everyone says "Legos" then "Legos" is the plural form. The company's opinion is irrelevant.

Having said that, I think the most usual plural is "Lego", at least according to the OED.

No, the company know how their company name and product should be spoken by us, the consumer. We are under obligation to get the name of the company and the product right. It's a poor excuse to try and get out of admitting you've been using the wrong phrasing for LEGO all your life. It's a weak argument that just doesn't work.

You ignored, yet again my sheep comment. We say we saw a sheep. We say we saw some sheep.

We say we have a LEGO brick. We say we have some LEGO. You want to talk about how English speakers decide how the language works, but you seem to forget how the English language does work, and you're just making up your own rules as you go to try and justify being wrong.

The fact also remains that LEGO is not English in the first place, it is Dutch, and comes from the Danish phrase "leg godt", which means "play well". You remove the entire point of the name by using the incorrect phrasing.

So whether you like it or not, the company is right and well within their rights to tell anyone who uses the ridiculous term "Legos" that they are wrong, because it is wrong. It's English user arrogance that tries to justify their wrong useage with weak arguments. Especially when we're not even discussing English in the first place, we're discussing Dutch.

But I'm sure you'll ignore my sheep comment, yet again, and ramble on how it's the English speakers who apparently make up their own rules even when it's wrong.

Christ, I've never heard such a weak argument to try justify wrong useage of a phrase in my life.

Either way, this is the end of our discussion. "Legos" is wrong, whether you like it or not. There's a reason why "Legos" isn't even in the dictionary, or on the company site, and why the rest of the world but America do not use the term. Because the company name, product is "LEGO", plain and simple, and it comes from a Dutch phrase.

Try and justify your wrong useage all you want, it'll never be right.

“No, the company know how their company name and product should be spoken by us, the consumer. We are under obligation to get the name of the company and the product right.”

What obligation is this? Is there a law? Companies try to enforce how their trademarks are used, but it doesn't work - for instance “kleenex”.

“The fact also remains that LEGO is not English in the first place, it is Dutch, and comes from the Danish phrase "leg godt", which means "play well".”

It was borrowed from Danish, but it's an English word. The claim that it should be used a certain way because of its history is the etymological fallacy.

You say that “Lego” has a zero plural, like “sheep”. However, in my dialect “lego” is a mass noun, like “water”. I would say “one piece of Lego, two pieces of Lego”, not “one Lego, two Lego/Legos”.

“But I'm sure you'll ignore my sheep comment, yet again, and ramble on how it's the English speakers who apparently make up their own rules even when it's wrong.”

So if every English speaker on Earth starts to say “legos”, it's still wrong because of someone’s opinion about how the word should be used?

Goofy, allow me to take up the gauntlet on your behalf. Frank35, in "we saw some sheep", the word "sheep" is an irregular plural. On the other hand, in "we have some LEGO", the word LEGO is not plural at all. It is a mass noun, and is still singular. Thus, your analogy doesn't hold up.

Even if it did, it would still be irrelevant. There are a few nonstandard plurals like sheep, moose, fish, deer, etc., but there are many, many more that are standard: car/cars, house/houses, sock/socks, etc. The existence of a few nonstandard plurals has nothing to do with how other words should be pluralized. Are you suggesting that pluralizing by adding -s should be completely eliminated from the English language? If not, then what's your point exactly?

Do note, I'm not debating the correctness of "legos" as a plural (for now). I'm simply addressing your "sheep" comment.

Also, irregular plurals, irregular verbs, etc., are usually [always?] ancient words whose forms have been passed down for generations, possibly from our language's early origins. New words rarely [never?] use irregular forms for their prototypes.

Thanks, porsche, you said it better than I could. I'll add that the test for mass nouns is: can you put a number in front of it? Take "furniture", a textbook mass noun. We don't say "one furniture, two furnitures", we have to use a counting word, like "one piece of furniture, two pieces of furniture". The same with "Lego".

I would say “LEGOs” is perfectly fine if you are referring to the pieces of LEGO. It is however wrong to say “LEGOs”, if you are referring to the brand/company.

http://www.legoluv.com/plural-for-lego/

Although for me Lego is uncountable, I fully accept JMick's point about different customs in different places. And goofy is right to point out that what the company says is neither here nor there when it comes to everyday usage. Remember how Google complained when the OED listed the eponymous verb as being a general term for searching the internet using any search engine, not just Google - do any of us bother with that?

But I wonder if this happens with any other kit names, for example Meccano - 'How many Meccanos did you use to make that bridge?' - sounds a bit weird to me.

Adjective.....

Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site
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.

Source : http://aboutus.lego.com/en-us/legal-notice/fair-play/

For some reason, I can't use my original screenname. Doh!

Warsaw, good point about different sets. I had some toys called Construx when I was a kid, and I never called them "Construces" or something weird like that. I think the difference with Lego is how ubiquitous they are. I live in Hong Kong now, and there are Lego-building classes advertised everywhere.

It's like pes' point earlier about Band-aid bandages. If my son scrapes his knee, I ask him if he wants a band-aid. If he has several scrapes, I might have to put two or three band-aids on him. Band-aid started out as a brandname, and it's evolved to the point where it's used as a common noun. The Lego company doesn't want that to happen to it's brand (some of their international trademarks have already expired), and thus they engage in their campaign to dictate how we use the word "Lego." (Here's one story about how Lego has failed to keep the trademark on their design - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-judges-rule-out-lego-trademark-2079150.html - even though that design was borrowed/stolen from another company before Lego bought that company - http://www.cracked.com/article_20025_5-world-famous-products-that-are-shameless-rip-offs.html )

We're getting into the difference between prescriptive and descriptive definitions. Generally, dictionaries are descriptive in that they describe how a word is used in a particular language. If enough people start using Lego as a common noun, that usage will be reflected in a dictionary like the OED. The Lego company, however, is aiming to be prescriptive, to control the word's meaning and usage. In language, that's like plugging your finger into a dam's wall and hoping you can prevent a flood.

I am Canadian. Me and my friends have always called it "Lego". Most Americans seem to say "Legos". I think the difference is how we see it. I see it as a game called Lego, not a bunch of individual pieces. For this reason, "I want to play Legos" is no less correct than saying, "I want to play Monopolies". It's an ongoing debate that may never be solved.

The correct plural of Porsches (sic) is Porsche. The web-writer that wrote that on Porsche's website should be sacked. It's sloppy writing.

The correct plural of Legos (sic) is Lego, it is a collective noun. Legos is an American colloquialism that in my opinion, as a professional writer, should not be used in print.

Actually lego being the plural form is absolutely 100% correct for this product, Lego is no the name of each individual piece, it is the name given to the set or range of objects, each individual piece is "a piece of lego".

There is no "right" or "wrong" on it, honestly. There is the preferred usage by the company "LEGO" for the collective noun. You can say that is correct or you can say that it is what it is ... a preferred usage to ensure a trademark.

The way people differ in using it seems to be entirely based upon how they view the item, it seems. But I think the reason Americans use LEGOs rather than the collective noun is because we shorten things. For instance:

So far everyone has been saying, "LEGO brick/s" "LEGO piece/s" "LEGO set/s" and so on and apparently we can agree on that. Everyone above has said that's fine, at least. And each time the modifier to LEGO is pluralized by an "s".

"LEGO brick" / "LEGO bricks". Obviously the "s" changes the singular "brick" to "bricks". So, Americans dropped "brick" altogether, deciding to refer to each brick as LEGO, and carried the "s" over as a plural substitution. We don't see a "LEGO brick" necessarily; we see a "LEGO". When we use the word "LEGO" we are implying "brick". Thus, when we say "LEGOs" what we're implying are "LEGO bricks".

BMW is an initialism which stands for Bavarian Motor Works. Whether you were trying to say Bavarian Motor Works' or Bavarian Motor Works's, the initialism remains BMW.

Porches is cool, though.

The reason why the plural works for a Mac or a BMW is because the product is called the company name, e.g 1 BMW, 2 BMWs. So you can say, "there are multiple BMW's" because the singular is called a BMW. This is not the case with LEGO, LEGO is the company name yes but one piece of LEGO is called "a piece of LEGO" not "a LEGO" you wouldn't say "could you pass me a LEGO?" but would say "could you pass me a piece of LEGO" therefore the plural is technically "2 pieces of LEGO" not "2 LEGOs". You can say "could you pass me the LEGO" referring to the entire product but if you were talking about individual pieces, LEGO's is incorrect.
There is no discussion, or debate, it's just English.

I think you should say, "a LEGO piece". There is something that makes me uncomfortable about "a piece of LEGO" but I have not been able to define exactly what.
Further, "BMW's" is possessive. The plural form that you correctly used in another place is "BMWs".
I agree with your analysis is otherwise.

This whole conversation brings to mind one of my favourite sayings:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not everyone is entitled to their own facts"

Any word like LEGOES, LEGOS, LEGOs, or any attempt to pluralise the brand name LEGO is WRONG. It's grammatically wrong, and it's wrong according to the company who own the brand name.

In many circumstances there may be a social convention of dropping the noun and pluralising the brand name, such as BMWs or any other brna dname that does not actually name their product with the branded name. This convention, no matter how widely accepted and used, is not correct. It may have fallen into common useage, but it would not be used in any formal or official document where correctness of grammar is required, and is therefore WRONG.

So pluralise LEGO all you want, enjoy the sound of the word, let it roll off your tongue daily, just don't try to argue that it is grammatically correct,

@Captain Typo,

First, Lego's demands that people use Lego bricks is ignorant of the fact that only a small fraction of the pieces are, in fact, bricks. There is an array of pieces that does not include the iconic brick. There is a possibility for Lego pieces.

Even so, I will refuse to accept what they have prescribed.

Additionally, to say that,

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not everyone is entitled to their own facts."

is ludicrous considering the subject being English because of how it, and other languages, evolve. You still don't speak Anglo-Saxon do you? Or do you still you use thee, thou, thy, and thine? Or the noun suffixes that are attached when matched with certain verbs?

If you believe the rules of stranding prepositions and splitting the infinitive, then you are only following prescriptions and are unable to discern the Germanic roots of the English language.

@Captain Typo - I generally like your favourite saying, but would suggest:

1) What the brand-owner wants is neither here nor there in a language sense, only in a legal sense. You can Google with whatever search engine you like, and (in Britain at least) do the hoovering with whatever vacuum cleaner you like.

2) Although I wouldn't personally pluralise LEGO, I think that has more to do with whether or not LEGO is a countable noun. I can't see how you can make a blanket rule that it is grammatically incorrect to pluralise brand names, which are simply proper nouns, and which can be pluralised like any other countable noun:

Who's coming to the party? - Well, there are the two Johns, then there's Jenny ....
He's got two Fords and three Harley-Davidsons
He has an excellent collection of maps of the Americas

3) And even if you couldn't do this in formal documents, for some inexplicable reason, it really is an old chestnut that only what is permissible in formal grammar is "correct". If that were the case, most of us would be talking ungrammatically much of the time, which makes a nonsense of the whole idea of grammar, which is simply the system we use to form words and put them together so we can be mutually understood.

4) 'It may have *fallen* into common usage' - Common usage is exactly how the rules of languages are formed and evolve.

I would have argued the case, but I just read that the Oxford Dictionary will now include 'OMG' - so I give up.

@Capitan Typo - What is the job of a dictionary if not to tell people the meanings of words and expressions they hear or see and might not know? Like it or not, a sizeable number of speakers of Standard English say OMG, and it appears a lot on the web; it's even in a billboard advertisement here in Poland. Although many people treat the OED as the 'bible', it never itself set out to be the arbiter of usage; that's what usage guides do (if you really want that sort of thing).

Warsaw Will: do you really hear people *say* (as opposed to just writing) OMG?
But yes I agree with you about the job of a dictionary, although it should probably lag behind actual usage by a few years because some words/expressions turn out to be passing fads.
I'd say OMG and LOL are common currency now.

I also agree that the pluralization (or not) of Lego hinges on whether it's a mass noun or a countable noun (this would seem to depend on what part of the world you live in), and the whole brand name thing is really a red herring.

Hi Chris B - Probably only on TV comedy programmes, to be honest. But you're right, I no doubt see it a lot more than I hear it. As for LOL, perhaps if the British PM, David Cameron, had checked this in a dictionary or wherever, he might not have made the gaffe of using it to sign off an email (as Lots of Love).

And as I personally never use these things, it's useful for me to be able to look them up as well. Although there are plenty of alternatives to the OED, which I don't have access to, anyway. For example, I only recently found out what the use of asterisks (as you've done with *say*) means. I had to look that one up. VBut I don't suppose it's in any dictionaries yet.

Point taken about the time lag, but with the OED (and no doubt most dictionaries) probably going online only, I'm not sure this will be so important, and it depends on how widely used it is. I seem to remember that 'podcast' was one dictionary's 'Word of the year' almost within a year of appearing.

I also think you're right about the part of the world thing - I think LEGOs is a mainly American usage.

It really doesn't matter. Everywhere else in the English speaking world, Lego is a collective noun. In America they say legos, which sounds stupid and childish to everyone else. But it doesn't to them. So live and let live. Laugh if you like, but it's their common usage so it's not wrong in an American context. I like American English anyway. Try winningest. You'd never use it but it brings me joy that this weird exists somewhere.

That should have been word, of course! Maybe my predictive text making its own qualitative judgement :-)

Sorry for being late to the party, but I'd just like to say that LEGO is like toast.

Two slices of toast, not two toasts. Two pieces of LEGO, not two LEGOs.

And can I just quietly rant and rave at the suggestion that "tip" could be an acronym (or backronym) for "To insure promptness"? Leaving a tip would hopefully ensure promptness, not insure. To ensure is to make sure something happens. To insure is to protect yourself against the possibility that something may, or may not (as the case may be), happen.

I whole heartedly agree with the comment about
Two slices of toast, not two toasts. Two pieces of LEGO, not two LEGOs.
Nevertheless, there is a contingent in the United States who will say, "I picked up two cottage cheeses" rather than "I picked up two packages of cottage cheese," and who will not be bothered by "two toasts". It's annoying but I bite my tongue, and rant here.

@Warsaw Wil: that's a very good point about the purpose and use of a dictionary, so please stop making valid points and leave me to my curmudgeonly prejudice.

@Capitan Typo - in the spirit of the goodwill you have so generously fostered, and in respect for curmudgeons everywhere, including me sometimes, I'll try and refrain from making valid points in the future. Well, until I make my next comment anyway.

This has been a fun thread... My comment is-- as an American, I think we will see the use of legos continue in the States. Whadda'hell -- we do whatever we want anyway. It is very common to hear a mother say,' Put your legos away, dear, it's time for supper." Proper or not, it is firmly in the language now and I don't see it going away any time soon. It will be another of those things that writers can use to 'place' a story- like 'bloody' will set a tale in England.
And we have plenty of examples of brand names going astray-- we zerox papers, use saran wrap, apply a band-aid... LEGO is just another word for us to mangle and misuse with blithe indifference. The rest of the world may have to accept the fact we are this way. American English was never about rules anyway....

Some parts of the world, like Finland, will happily accept the American English style. In Finnish we talk about Legos (meaning Lego-bricks, also used by the largest newspaper) and also about Donald Ducks when referring to the most popular comic books.

You wouldn't say 'bags of flours' or 'a herd of sheeps'

IT"S 'LEGO', ALWAYS JUST 'LEGO'. THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS 'LEGOS'.

Piles of Lego, a bit of Lego, all my Lego. Get it?

@T_reason

Your argument is, I believe, a non-sequitur. You state that x of y is correct plural (to take your example bags of flour), when the question asks for whether Legos, or Legoes(?), is an incorrect plural. But what about these kinds of things? Would you say that is wrong? It sounds pretty natural to me. Although pieces of Lego might be suitable substitution, I think the focus is on having a plural without a prepositional phrase, thus Legos/es.

Saying that "THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS 'LEGOS'." is a particularly bad argument because words get added here and there, some that people, myself included, object to. But to further illustrate the absurdity of the statement, if Shakespeare had never added and created new words from other languages, most of our vocabulary, wordstock for those proponents of Anglish, and idioms would never have existed.

Besides, Legos is a very innocuous word.

Edit: Sentences 3 through 5 should be removed because they are erroneous.

@T_reason - if there was (were for subjunctive freaks) no such word as legos, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. The fact that a lot of people use it, including people like the LA Times and NPR, has, by definition, made it a word. How else would you describe it?

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-one-mans-quest-to-prove-legos-can-be-used-to-make-art-20131014,0,5081534.st

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2013/06/28/196605763/girls-legos-are-a-hit-but-why-do-girls-need-special-legos

What does "sparate" mean?
Legos is a place.

How about say lego bricks as that is proper way or to reffer to a group of lego. I love my lego bricks i knew this when i was 4 and i don't care what grammar says. Yes i changed from duplo blocks(yeah i know as of late these are bricks to but weren't when i was a kid) to lego bricks earlier then recommended as a child. It doesn't change fact it i bought a box of lego bricks.

With the exception of Americans on the internet I have never heard anyone use the word legos. It sounds odd to me.

Would you actually say I'm playing with my Legos? Pleaase hand me those legos?

That seems so wrong, here in the UK we say, I'm playing with my lego. Please hand me those lego pieces.

But what about people from other countries?

This is a pet peeve for me too. The problem stems from people's belief that a single LEGO brick is a LEGO. This misconception is common in the US where I now live. These same people would look at you strangely if you talked about building a toy log cabin from Lincolns, as opposed to the correct term: Lincoln logs.
Use of LEGO to refer to a collection of LEGO bricks/pieces isn't strictly correct either although it hurts less to hear, - it is simply a contraction of the formal description "LEGO set", "LEGO pieces", or some such.

What about "How many weetabixes did you have for breakfast?" or "I had quite a lot of Dinkies when I was young" (Dinky cars). I think I'd say the first but probably not the second.

As I've told my friend, Lego is a contraction of two Danish words "leg godt (play well)"=>lego. A verb being changed into a proper noun. If the Danes are allowed to contract words and change the lexical category of them, then we have the right to do what we wish with that word.

*Remove "being"

LEGO is both singular and plural so LEGOs is not a valid word.

There was a recent movie called "The LEGO Movie". Why wasn't it called "The LEGOs Movie"? There were more than one piece of LEGO in the movie, so wouldn't it make more sense? It's because LEGO is already a plural.

It's always been LEGO to me (caps or not). I see people who use "Legos" as casual consumers of the product, and should have no business writing about LEGO for public viewing.

Lego (the bricks) should be lego in both singular and plural, like fish or sheep.

In the UK we use Lego singular and plural - which although is still not technically correct - is better than "Legos" (Chrome even knows the correct rule as I type this).

Please America, take the "s" of Lego and put it back on "math" where it belongs.

BTW - looks like it is you that needs a a proof reader - I know separate is a difficult word to spell - but it is usually the second vowel which is the issue not the first or lack of it!

The name "LEGO" is not derived from English language, and therefore it cannot be stated that the very English method of adding an 's' for a plural is definitively correct. In this case I would suggest LEGO pieces (as the company itself requests), especially now that the LEGO brand has diversified into films, video games, and even cake tins. It is worth noting, however, that throughout most of the world the plural of LEGO has always been simply LEGO.

LEGO does not refer to the bricks, but to the brand. Therefore, it is incorrect to say LEGOs, as you would be referring to multiple LEGO companies. The only correct way to refer to them is "LEGO bricks."

The reason Legos is wrong is because a Lego is not an thing, it’s a company, but not just in the way the author used it. It’s a company that produces Lego bricks or Lego pieces, the company doesn’t say it makes Legos and never has, that’s an abbreviation someone in the US made. Therefore “I am playing with Lego” or “can I buy some more Lego because I need more pieces” is correct.

I feel that legos is correct, and evolved much like the verb google (from the brand Google) has become. No one is going to say Lego bricks or blocks, they're going say legos.

So, I support the pluralized version and will probably continue with that, since it is about all I hear. To satiate the masses, I would distinguish with a capitalized version. Lego = brand and legos is pluralized version of where the branded item has evolved.

I think you are probably from the US.

I know you are wrong.

Well, not exactly. LEGO is the brand and building blocks are the product they produce. “LEGO’s” is a slang term, bastardized from incorrect usage.

Sorry, but you are in fact wrong. LEGO is the brand and they produce building blocks or a building block, singular. The term LEGO’s is a slang bastardization that has made its way into popular culture, albeit wrong, it is still slang and is not correct. If you are going to act as an English authoritarian, please do you homework and fact check first. Also BMW, Bavarian Motor Works has an “s” at the end of the proper name, and that is why you might see it referenced in both forms.

Lego what? Lego brick or Lego bricks but always Lego

I just had a brief debate over the use of the plural of Lego. It is common usage that the individual pieces of the product are called a lego. Therefore one lego, two legos.

Yes, it is very wrong.

Look saying "LEGOs" is grammatically incorrect because its like saying furnitures it just makes no sense, I do agree that its not because its the companies name but you still don't put and S at the end of LEGO

"LEGOs" is wrong, LEGO is an uncountable noun (like sand, water, rice ect.).
You wouldt say that you are boiling "a lot of rices", or "one rice".
You'd say "a lot of rice", or "one rice grain"
In the same way you also can't claim to have a box with "a lot of LEGOs", or "one lego".
What you have is "a lot of LEGO", or "one LEGO brick"

LEGO is spelled in all caps and is an adjective and is plural. LEGO is a brand name, not the name of the product. LEGO produces brick based sets and sells loose pieces. American culture is to be independent from the rest of the world at all costs to preserve their masculinity and therefore Americans are the most egotistical people in the world, especially republican nationalists. They believe that the sets and pieces are LEGO so multiple pieces together must be legos right, wrong. Americans view company names as the titles of the products themselves which is wrong

can you use an uncountable noun as a countable one?
Is it okay to say I play musics? Do you give people advices? I would like some informations about this. And if I'm wrong that would be extraordinary newses.
I'm not saying I don't have excess baggagess, but I find it important to use our intelligences to get this right.
I can feel the electricitys in the air about this topic and I'm willing to put moneys on it... I don't care, I'll even wager some rices too. I'd bet all the petrols at the refinery too. Golds? I'll buy some to bet against your supply of lumbers.

Hit me up, we can discuss it over coffees, while we watch the tennises down by the concretes.

If this comment does your head in, then you are proof that it's LEGO, not LEGOs.