Lego cookie-cutter

Discuss

76 Responses to “Lego cookie-cutter”

  1. Sparrow says:

    My parents always used legos, most people in my generation called it lego, unless they couldn’t afford to spend so much on interlocking pieces of plastic and called it mega blocks. It doesn’t matter whether it’s lego or legos. I just like baiting the people who insist on capitalizing the term.
    I’m still annoyed that the candy interlocking bricks are too small to be compatible with the plastic ones.
    The cutter doesn’t look like it would be useful for baked cookies, since they would settle while baking and lose the shape, but it might work for fudge, marzipan or icing.

  2. dltallan says:

    Endless thread aside, most people seem to be missing the critical point (except comment #9 above). A defining factor of Lego blocks (or lego or legos) is that they interlock. If the cookies don’t do that, what’s the point. And these don’t.

    Lego blocks (or lego or legos) are defined as much by their underside as by their studs. And that underside is not created by this cookie cutter, only the top side is. (And that’s assuming that the cookies retain their shapes. Reports have it that they don’t.)

    Result: Not on my shopping list.

  3. trr says:

    Glad to see you’ve adopted a reasonable and pragmatic approach to this silly debate, Cory.
    Anyway,
    I’m guessing that the recipe you use for the cookie dough will affect whether or not they retain a recognizable shape. The seller would do well to offer a suggested recipe to give good results. (e.g toll-house and peanut butter bad, sugar cookie good – I’m just guessing there)

  4. robulus says:

    Oh no! All my aluminum foil didn’t stop the fallout from that nucular bomb contaminating my legos!

    It’s ruined their color.

  5. robulus says:

    Anyway, if the cookies lose their shape, you could always use this cutter for lego icing on cakes.

    Or is that frosting…

  6. Tdawwg says:

    Millions of people type your meaning you’re. Usage should never dictate formal correctness.

    Typos aren’t exactly usage, though, nor are isolated mistakes or even a pattern of ignorance. If the two words were used interchangeably by enough people, and if a consensus as to the semantic meanings of these usages were established in practice, then, indeed, usage would have determined formal correctness.

    It seems like many of you are ignoring the process of Anglicization: it’s common in English to form plurals of weird “furrin” words by adding an “S.” So I’d say ninjas reflexively, without worrying about the Japanese plural ninja, which would be completely dumb for a native English speaker…. even though it’s technically correct qua Japanese, I’d be violating my English-language speech conventions if I insisted archly on the Japanese plural as the only “correct” form. (As the “Bimmer” snobs do, and as the “Lego” partisans are trying to do here.) Like most languages, English obeys its own laws when “naturalizing” a foreign word.

  7. Wibbly says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    Only North Americans screw up the name of Lego. I don’t understand this celebration of mediocrity and inaccuracy in which Cory revels.

    Popular usage … ha! (I know you’ve travelled extensively, but do you have any idea how much Lego there is in Europe?)

    How about we take a vote, with the number of votes to which you are entitled to be based on the amount of Lego in your possession.

  8. Alex_M says:

    #52 0rac1e – A stupid statement. You know every language in the world, then?

    You can’t even BEGIN to the word ‘lego’ in many languages, including its native Danish, without tacking on grammatical endings.

    The ONLY reason Lego is anal-retentive about people not saying ‘legos’ and such, is because they don’t want to genericize their tradmark.

    Same reason why Adobe doesn’t want you to say “photoshopped”:
    http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html

  9. Wibbly says:

    Oh yes … and while we’re on the topic …

    Miles versus Kilometres?

    Letter and Legal paper versus A4?

    Pounds (lbs) versus Kilograms?

    Aluminum versus Aluminium?

  10. tonx says:

    so is the proper plural “lego bricks” or “lego brick”?

  11. Anonymous says:

    It’s Lego. Lego. Lego! LegoLand, not LegosLand!

    I’m too old to play with Lego but still do, and over 30 years of collecting sets and sorting bricks I’ve never seen or heard anyone who can actually build anything decent with the stuff call it anything but “Lego.” Only the unskilled kids who didn’t know how to overlap bricks or match colours called it “Legos.” So by calling it Legos, you’re putting yourself in pretty poor company!

    -Damien in Toronto

  12. Anonymous says:

    I like to eat Cheez-It while making stuff with Legos.

  13. Hal says:

    It is heartening to me to see a Canadian accept that US usage rumps British usage. Hopefully the rest of Canada will see the light soon.

  14. wobinidan says:

    There is no plural of lego since it is a substance, like ice, or weed, or sulphur. That’s why we in the rest of the world have no problem referring to it as lego, since there is no need to refer to it in multiples.

    If you’re interested, the source of this comes from the fact that lego was generally sold in kits, whether you were buying a car, an STD clinic or re-enacting the crusades, you were buying a theme, a pre-imagined object. Thus, the blocks themselves were merely matter waiting to be transformed.

    Also, this is why everyone hates America. Source: pulled-out-of-my-ass-ipedia.

  15. Brainspore says:

    Know what would be fun to watch? A marketing guy for Cracker Jack at a baseball game during the 7th inning stretch. People have been improperly pluralizing the name of that product for over a century.

  16. robulus says:

    By the way, when I say cookies, I mean biscuits.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Millions of people type your meaning you’re. Usage should never dictate formal correctness.

  18. Takuan says:

    “leggers”

  19. Funklord says:

    Trademark and name arguments aside, do we really want to train our children to put Legos in their mouths and swallow them? Wasn’t that the big controversy over the lego-shaped candy that was out a while ago:
    http://parentingsquad.com/train-your-kids-to-swallow-a-choking-hazard-with-lego-fun-snacks

  20. Anonymous says:

    “Lego” singular FTW!

    Incidentally, a small child searching through a crate of lego in search of an elusive brick is the loudest activity known to man, louder than

    - A Boeing 747 at takeoff
    - An AC/DC soundcheck
    - The Tunguska event of 1908

  21. Anonymous says:

    “Usage trumps formal correctness every time”
    that sir is faulty logic.

    Nope. Language -is- the usage. That’s how it’s formed and evolved. New words and usages don’t come from the dictionary the come from usage and end up in the dictionary.

    I’m not sure where pedantic misanthropes come from, but they all seem to arrive on the Internet.

  22. trr says:

    “There is no plural of lego since it is a substance, like ice, or weed, or sulphur.”

    You’ve got to be kidding! I can go along with people wanting to conform to the desires of the LEGO manufacturer that everyone say “Lego” for plural, but this is the stupidest justification for it I’ve seen. If all Lego pieces were indistinguishable one *might* be able to say this, but they are not. There are many types of pieces. They are easy to count. In fact, all the boxed sets say how many pieces are contained within.

    “…you were buying a theme, a pre-imagined object.”

    I have noticed that children tend to invent their own objects when playing with toys like this, after they’ve followed the plans. That’s part of the appeal. You can mix and match and build whatever you can imagine if you have the right pieces.

  23. akbar56 says:

    @Sijay

    “When Lego Group starts selling bricks by weight or volume rather than unit count I will reconsider not using the plural.”

    They actually do sell by volume. My local Lego store has a wall of bins of random pieces. You can fill a small or large bucket with as many pieces you can fit in for a flat fee. (6.99/14.99 in US right now)

  24. Itsumishi says:

    Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?

    As others have said, yes I would and have said this many many times.

    Bob built a castle. He made it out of Lego.
    Bob built a castle. He made it out of Legos.

    Bob built a sandcastle. He made it out of sand.
    Bob built a sandcastle. He made it out of sands.

    and

    Bob built a castle. He made it out of block.
    Bob built a castle. He made it out of blocks.

    Proves nothing.

    Actually it does, because the first sentence in both of the original examples were correct. Who the hell makes something out of block?

    “please pick up all those Lego on the floor.”

    It wouldn’t occur to me to say this either.
    As the next comment said “please pick up all that Lego on the floor”.

    Another non-lego example could be “pick up all that rice on the floor” certainly you wouldn’t use the word rices in that (or any) example.

  25. apoxia says:

    I’m a bit of a cookie cutter fetishist, so I like this.

    When will people learn that Lego is both a singular and plural noun (like sheep).

  26. Anonymous says:

    “Usage trumps formal correctness every time”
    that sir is faulty logic.

    All kidding aside thats an awesome cookie cutter, i think i will order one.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I always called it “Lego”, singular.

    Around 1981, when I was 10, my best friend and I played with Lego. Even at that age, I winced whenever I heard “Legos” and would correct people. “Lego! It’s Lego!”, I’d yell. To me it sounded uncultured and low-bred. Only parents and non-Lego people used it: “Time for bed, put your Legos away!” “Hey, wanna play Legos?”

    That’s another debate for another time… play Lego, or play “with” Lego…

  28. Tdawwg says:

    Language is as language does. Either form is correct, but Legos is certainly fine, as it’s standard usage for millions. Cf. data as a singular noun: once incorrect (because only the Latinate form was considered), the newer form has become so common that correctness isn’t really the issue: currency and commonality are.

  29. dculberson says:

    “The Lego site states ‘Never say a model made out of Legos’”

    And I definitely look to businesses and corporations to define my language.

    Jeez, it’s like the “beemer” versus “bimmer” douches in here. Legos or lego, it’s a toy and intended to be fun. Just ignore it and move on.

  30. Godfree says:

    I honestly clicked on the comments link expecting the controversy to be over the casual “legos” vs the corporate “Lego bricks.” I’ve never heard anyone use “Lego” as a plural, and it wouldn’t occur to me to say “please pick up all those Lego on the floor.” Is that an American thing?

  31. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Please. It’s Legoes.

  32. Mr_Staypuft says:

    “Millions” may call ‘em “Legos”, but BILLIONS say “Lego”.

    Sheep analogy = correct. :-)

  33. Anonymous says:

    “please pick up all that lego on the floor.”

  34. airshowfan says:

    In the US, “Lego” means “a LEGO piece”, and it tends to be a count noun, like most objects.

    In most of the rest of the world, “Lego” means “the stuff LEGO makes”, and it tends to be a noncount noun, like most substances.

    Can we get over this and accept that there are regional differences to how the word is typically used? Especially across languages. Is that so unacceptable? Heck, most Americans and Brits would be horrified by how a lot of countries, such as Brazil, not only butcher the pronunciation of English words but often also their grammatical use. But once some consistent use (even if initially said to be “wrong”) becomes an accepted part of the language of a population, is it still “wrong”? Is the “right” use of a word the use described in the grammar book, or the way people actually use it? It’s an interesting debate, but I lean towards the latter. [On some BoingBoing post a couple years ago, possibly the one about Chinglish or the one about English and its user-modifiability, someone's comment included a link to a long and really great article on this debate, but I can't find it :(]

  35. Anonymous says:

    It’s perfectly natural to pluralize anything of which you can count units with the naked eye.

    Two fish? Three sheep? Four grouse? Five aircraft? ‘There are seven species in this illustration of deer’? Eight spacecraft? Made of lego!

    Not the point, really, especially as you can’t count all the pieces in even the smallest lego set with the naked eye.

    I’m wondering if many Americans would say ‘The third little pig built a house of brick’. This might actually be where the pattern for ‘Lego’ as a mass noun came from: my house is made of straw/wood/brick/Lego. My model spaceship is made of lego.

    No, that doesn’t explain why it’s mysteriously a count noun over the pond.

  36. Anonymous says:

    (Two Lego sets, if you’ve just gone out and bought them, are shopping and not shoppings…)

  37. aelfscine says:

    There’s people that don’t say ‘Legos?’

    Wow.

    Also *bops the prescriptivists on the noodle*

  38. UnnecessaryUmlaut says:

    Now this raises a bigger question, about the plurality of waffles … is it lego my Eggo or Eggo(s)?

  39. Anselm says:

    I grew up in a bilingual household. I always said “legos” in English, and “Lego” in German. In this particular instance (singular/plural vis a vis lego(s), the grammar rules are the same).

    Anyone care to explain THAT?

  40. Anonymous says:

    @4 Mr. Staypuft: I’m sorry, which side of this disagreement are you comparing to sheep?

    I see two sides to this argument. One side holds that obviously nouns should never be used with grammatical principals that might seem natural to anyone other than native speakers of the language in which they were first uttered. This principle should be upheld even more rigorously by speakers of a language whose idiosyncrasies might lend it a certain mild confusion. This way you can sort out the true fans from the ignoramis who wanted to adopt the noun into the culturally barren context of their everyday lives. Losers.

    From the other point of view, it’s clear that all nouns of foreign origin should be wedged into one’s own grammar. The noun’s heritage and flavor should be discarded immediately, as irrelevant baggage. Using slightly less common grammar is a sign of detestable snobbery on the part of the speaker, and even more worrisome, a warning that the poor noun may not be fitting in so well in its new area of usage. We should let the noun shake off the confines of its past and welcome it to its new home as one of the dictionary, unlike those grammar fiends who want to use the poor thing as a vehicle by which to convince others that they are educated and knowledgeable. Posers.

    Myself, I believe in Ad Hoc Classical Revivalism. The plural of Lego should be Lnos, as long as it is used as the subject of your sentence. Now is as good a time as any to brush up on those declensions. Wretched grammarians plebeia, with their holier-than-you modern grammar.

  41. HowLode says:

    Teaching children that legos are edible is a really bad idea. I would not make these in a household with small children.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Godfree, I’m an American and I’ve always said “Legos.” I was just about to ask if using “Lego” as a plural was a British thing!

    Really I don’t understand what the big deal is. Both are equally correct in my view, and although “Legos” sounds more natural to me, it really just comes down to preference in the end.

  43. apoxia says:

    Lego in New Zealand English:

    “Pick up that lego”
    “You have heaps of lego”
    “I played with lego all the time as a child”
    “Pass me some of that lego”
    “Look at all your lego”
    “Pass me that red lego brick”
    “If you don’t clean up your lego I’m going to suck it up the vacuum cleaner”
    “No you can’t bring your lego into the lounge, aren’t you too old to still be playing with lego?”

    No-one here says legos. I actually only found out that American’s generally do a few years ago. Had a good laugh at that.

  44. Anonymous says:

    All the Americans saying that “Legos” sounds more natural/correct to them… That’s because it’s primarily an American term. Most of the rest of the world refers to it as “Lego” in the plural.

    “Look at all that Lego!”
    “Please clean up the Lego off the floor.”
    “I bought over 10 kilograms of Lego from Ebay”… I actually did :D

    BTW, 10kg is about 22lbs… You’re welcome, Americans.

  45. daemonsquire says:

    Looks like this whole thread might be going nucular.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Just to pipe in here on this Lego term usage. I (northeast USAer) and everybody I knew have always referred to Legos with the “s”. It sounds very awkward to me to drop that “s”, as I’m sure my way does to those of you that use preferred term.

    I’m sure Lego (the company) dictates usage without the “s” so they don’t risk genericizing their trademark (i.e. if a competitor could prove that “Pick up those Lego bricks” is essentially the same as “Pick up those legos”). That would be very bad for them.

  47. Anonymous says:

    apoxia – hear hear!

  48. Anonymous says:

    Am I right in thinking that “legos” is an Americanism?

    I don’t think there is a right and wrong. Anyways, for all the letters that have been removed from the English American language, its fair to add one back in once in a while, no?

  49. Anonymous says:

    too bad it doesn’t make the necessary space on the bottom to stick em together.

  50. devophill says:

    I believe the phrase you’re (not actually) looking for is “LEGO® Toys And Bricks”.

  51. Simeon says:

    By continuing to to use the incorrect form you are being deliberatly antagonistic.

    If usage trumps then googlefight has Lego at 40.6 mil vs .7mil for ‘legos’

    The Lego site states “Never say a model made out of Legos”

    Avoid this repetitive discussion in which you always lose by adopting the proper usage!

    You wouldn’t refer to datas or the medias so why do it here?

    (Damn, fell for it again.)

  52. Anonymous says:

    Regarding the usage trumping formality, I think the issue is disambiguation. With the your/you’re example, the words have different meanings. So… if you can come up with an example wherein “Lego” and “Legos” mean different things in context, even by a trivial degree, “Legos” would be incorrect in all other cases.

    Oh, & everybody said “Legos” when I was a kid. Not “Lego” or “Lego bricks,” just “Legos.”

  53. caffeine addict says:

    “Usage trumps formal correctness every time.”

    Oh lord, welcome to the idiocracy…

    Just because a phrase is popular amongst the American-English speaking parts of the world doesn’t make it correct.

    As Simeon points out, not only is it wrong but it’s a minority term.

    Pls stp mkng yrslf lk lk n dt…

  54. Cnoocy says:

    Plural, singular, whatever. Do they actually interlock with the real thing?

  55. Æ’low says:

    Ignoring the inane chat about the correct pluralised form of Lego (it’s Lego), just read the reviews for this piece of crap.

    “they didn’t hold their shape during baking because they are so small. They came out of the oven in an unrecognizable shape. ” etc….

  56. 0rac1e says:

    Tdawwg… This argument is a little different from the usual Anglicising of a foreign word. Here we have a word that is said one way (Lego) by the entire world, including English speakers… and said another way (Legos) ONLY by Americans.

  57. Gunnar says:

    “If usage trumps then googlefight has Lego at 40.6 mil vs .7mil for ‘legos’”

    Of course Lego is going to have more hits. There is no way to search Lego when used as a plural, so you get all its uses as a singular as well.

    Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?

  58. siliconsunset says:

    Am I the only person who thought maybe Cory was using the asterisked comment as a disclaimer toward the Lego/generic studded building brick (or whatever) argument that he might be anticipating?

    Yeah?
    Oh.

    Well, anyway, after reading the comments the internet helped me remember (http://boingboing.net/2009/05/25/pirate-theater-autom.html) that this is just Cory trolling his own site. What fun ;)

  59. Anonymous says:

    “Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?”
    Yes. I do.
    What would *you* say instead ? Surely “I played with lots of Legos as a kid” sounds wrong ? (Point of interest: The Firefox Brit-English dictionary knows “Lego” but not “Legos”).

  60. Mr_Staypuft says:

    Of course, the next step is to Google-map the usage of “Lego” vs “Legos” across the world.

    Come on BB army, you can do it.

  61. Alex_M says:

    I’m going to use the Danish plural form then: Legoer.

  62. Anonymous says:

    Of course Lego is going to have more hits. There is no way to search Lego when used as a plural, so you get all its uses as a singular as well.

    Nope, you can search for “lego” -”legos” and vice-versa…

    Googlefight still has lego as the winner

  63. Anonymous says:

    “Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?”

    Well… yeah, actually.

  64. koichan says:

    Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?
    Yes, yes I would.

    I’ve never heard it referred to as ‘Legos’ IRL at all.

  65. foop says:

    @Gunnar:

    ‘Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?’

    Yes, I would. And I suspect almost every UK Lego fan would (unless there’s been a generational change).

    As to the cookie cutter, I’d prefer chunkier 4x2s, maybe for brownies.

  66. Shad Bolling says:

    Cory is correct that usage always trumps formal correctness — Adobe cannot stop people from saying “That picture looks like it was photoshopped” any more than the LEGO Group can stop people from saying “legos” (or “LEGOS”).

    This is actually representative of living grammar (LEGO Group’s desires notwithstanding). For example, in British English it is common to always use “data” as a plural noun (UK: “All of these data are meaningless”), but in American English it is more common that “data” is viewed as similar to the uncountable noun “information” and followed by a singular verb (US: “All of this data is meaningless”). In the US it is more common that the word “datum” (the singular of “data”) is reserved for use in fields like GIS and GPS, and in those fields the plural is usually “datum points.”

    I think that what disturbs people the most is that grammar rules change over time, and at any given point in time there is a percentage of grammarians that agree on any given “rule” and a percentage that do not — over time the (majority) consensus can move from one end of the grammar spectrum to the other.

  67. mattxb says:

    Bob built a castle. He made it out of Lego.
    Bob built a castle. He made it out of Legos.

    Bob built a sandcastle. He made it out of sand.
    Bob built a sandcastle. He made it out of sands.

    Nope, it’s still preposterous.

  68. bellebouche says:

    How cute. It pressed my must-have buttons straight away. I’m pretty sure my nephews would go barmy over some lego biscuits.

    Added it to my basket, go to check out…

    P&P on a €9.99 cookie cutter… €4.95.

  69. Sijay says:

    Oh pft. “Lego” as a singular is a perfectly understood functional abbreviation for “Lego brick”. It’s perfectly natural to pluralize anything of which you can count units with the naked eye.

    When Lego Group starts selling bricks by weight or volume rather than unit count I will reconsider not using the plural.

    As for protests over whether common usage = accepatable usage, I’m sure they will be shôrt-lÄ«vd.

  70. Grumblefish says:

    “Would you honestly say “I played with lots of Lego when I was a kid”?”

    Yes.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Bob built a castle. He made it out of block.
    Bob built a castle. He made it out of blocks.

    Proves nothing.

  72. Tdawwg says:

    0RAC1E, Americanization, then. The point stands that it’s a significant enough usage to be free from too much handwringing over its correctness.

    For what it’s worth the LEGO Message Board comes up with 1,410 instances of legos. Some of the posts are lovely found poems, as with this tender missive:

    well tecnicly i’m a LEGO desiner i have lots of secrets for legos like how 2 make a scyscraper DO NOT PUSH ON IT IT WILL FALL! but a real one we would share secrets and trade blueprints i go start scyscyaper

    There you have it, “tecnicly” a “desiner” and he says “legos.” Back, haters!

  73. Anonymous says:

    North America says Legos
    Europe says Lego

    Where does Lego come from? Europe (Denmark)

    You North Americans can saw what you like, just done tell us we’re wrong.

  74. Marshall says:

    LEGO, dammit.

  75. Anonymous says:

    What about injuries? If a scrape is big enough you’d use two band-aids, not two Band-aid Brand Adhesive Bandages, right?

    I say Legos is fine, it’s the plural of Lego.

Leave a Reply