I think the think that annoys me the most about American English is the use of the word Lego. Saying I have lots of Legos sounds as stupid as saying I have lots of Pokemons.
So... I'm guessing that no one here is actually interested in the engine, just in being pedantic about localized usage of a word?
FWIW, my 11 year-old amazes me with his Lego/Legos/whatever constructions and I'm definitely going to show him this. Anything to offer more inspiration.
Lego is the best toy anyone can buy their kids. Seriously, forget about teaching them programming until later. Buy them lots of lego as soon as you can. It'll teach them maths, art, problem solving, engineering, following instructions, creativity etc etc.
Untrue. My daughter loves the 'Lego friends' range. She still loves all the other ranges, but they have done the range extremely well for people who love flowers, animals, etc etc.
That's nice that she likes it. What makes it rubbish is that it's generally far less intricate, with far fewer separate pieces and far fewer assembly steps. These things are what makes lego so neat. What you have here is rubbish lego, with a picture of a flower on. Great.
Pokemon already stands for something plural though (Pocket Monsters). According to Wikipedia, LEGO's a shortening of "leg godt", meaning "play well", so it seems acceptable to make it plural. (Granted, I don't speak Danish, so maybe not?)
Lego also stands for something plural. That's how it has always been used, and hearing/reading it the other way is just as jarring as talk of sheeps or rices would be. Please stop.
It jumps out at me, the same consistent misspellings or grammar errors do. Os I wouldn't say I struggle with them, but they are certainly an annoying distraction.
We're already diverging from the official version, so I don't think one could be more correct than the other. This is like arguing over whether "octopuses" or "octopi" is correct when the etymologically correct form is "octopodes." Only pedants and etymologists worry about it.