That depends on whether they’re fractal down to the molecular level, and whether they’re a left-handed or right-handed isomer.
I have always referred to it collectively as ‘lego’ “I’m going to play with my lego” (or occasionally ‘lego collection’) - Same principle as ‘meccano’ -; it’s a trade name, pluralising sounds weird to me, but hey.
Don’t go blind.
Google searches:
“Lego blocks” : 7,290
“Lego bricks”: 8,620
“Lego toy”: 2,080
“Lego toys”: 4,610
“Legos” : 84,000 (many of them for an operating system called legOS. Through brute foce use of the -, I got rid of some of them, but the least I could whittle it down to was around 70,000 hits.)
In speech, I think it would remarkably pointy-headed to say anything but “legos,” but if I had a webpage, I’d probably be nice and say “Lego bricks,” though I kind of like the sound of “Lego” as a collective noun.
Ah, Lego. What a wonderful thing.
– Podkayne, who has made the pilgrimage to Legoland in Denmark and found it, and Danish yogurt, to be Good Things.
You sure about this? Companies ask us not to use their brand as a generic noun because common usage can cause them to lose their exclusive use of a trademark. I recall ads by the Xerox corporation asking people to use the term “photocopy” as the noun or verb, and only use “Xerox” when referring to Xerox brand products, specifically because they were worried about losing their trademark. From reading their ad, it sounded like what made the difference was common usage.
The alt.usage.english FAQ has a long list of common words that were once trademarks but lost their status for this reason. Ones I can recall are aspirin, oatmeal, gasoline, kerosene, trampoline, and zipper.
There are many ways a company can lose trademark rights in a term. With regard to “aspirin,” for example, after the Second Wrold War, the allies demanded that the German government force teh Bayer company to relinquish its trademark rights in the word so that it could be used by any manufacturer of aceto-salycilic acid products.
It would be very, very unusual today for a company to lose its trademark rights in a term just because ordinary consumers started using the term as a generic. Look at some of the examples given here – Xerox, Kleenex, Coke, Photoshop, even Frisbee. These are all trademarked terms and the companies that own the terms are in no danger of losing their trademark rights in spite of the fact that they are extensively used by consumers generically.
It’s only when the trademark owner itself fails to act to protect its rights in a term that it starts to risk losing rights. Part of what a trademark holder is expected to do is write policies purporting to set forth the “proper” use of the trademark and to write nasty letters to people who use it “improperly” in the media. Most importantly, the company must demonstrate that it is itself not using its trademark as a generic term and that when one of its competitors uses the term, it takes appropriate action.
The fact that consumers might start using a term as generic creates a very, very small risk that the company will lose its trademark rights. In fact, when it comes to marketing, it might be a big benefit to a company. Furthermore, when the use of the term is almost exclusively with regard to the company’s actual product itself, the real risk of losing rights is nil. That is, when people use “legos” incorrectly (in the eyes of the company), they are still almost always referring to the blocks made by the Lego company, never to blocks made by someone else. In other words, no matter what they say, it will hurt the Lego company noway nowhow if everybody in the dad-blamed world uniformly refers to Lego blocks as “Legos.”
From the point of view of a consumer, I see it this way. Language is a inborn human tool and it is an inborn human right to use language as we see fit. Limiting our linguistic choices because of the legal concerns of a commercial enterprise, in my view, is pointless and unnecessary. Even if Lego were to somehow lose its trademark rights in “Lego” (an almost completely unlikely prospect), by that time it would have had many decades to profit from exclusive use of the term and it would have the right to come up with another trademark to distinguish its plastic blocks from its competitors’ plastic blocks. Yes, it might be annoying to Lego, but, you know, in the big picture, no big loss to the world.
In other words, companies ask you to follow their rules because they have to ask you. Whether or not you comply is completely up to you and will have no effect on the company’s trademarks. Furthermore, there is an idea that the public actually has the right to make a word that originally sttarted out as a trademark into a generic term. If it suits us to use the word “Lego” generically, then ultimately there’s a limit to how long a commercial enterprise can try to stop us from doing so. Langague belongs to its users, not to individual entities.
They are, in a sense, but only when getting larger. Someone at my old job brought in a big tub of Legos, and also a little Harry Potter set. After the obvious stuff, like building a coffin for Hermione, somebody came up with something truly inspired. He used to Legos to build a bigger Lego. It was three blocks high, with 2x2s on top. We had a small collection of these after a while. The process can be continued, of course, using these large blocks to build even larger blocks.
What you think of as a Lego block is just the smallest quantized unit of the vast legodynamic system.
But 1 brick is NOT a lego, it is a brick. A brick made by Lego. A Lego brick. 2 bricks are 2 Lego bricks. Calling it collectively Lego sounds fine because it’s not missusing the Lego trademark, it’s just dropping the word “bricks” for the sake of brevity.
I think the US is the only place in the world to call them legos.
And seeing as how the internet is overly populated with Americans, it’s not surprising that “legos” collected the majority of Google hits. Doesn’t make it correct useage though.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English has this to say:
It also has this to say on the term ‘mass noun’:
So all the evidence suggests that using ‘legos’ as plural is incorrect regardless of whether you consider ‘lego’ to be a noun or not.
I have to disagree with this. I think that generic modular blocks are as often referred to as “legos” as anything else.
Your points are well-made, but you still haven’t changed my mind. I fail to see how everyone using “legos” to refere to Lego blocks is the logical eventual result of the respect of free speech. And I also feel that I’m invoking this right as much as you are.
Yeah, you might think that, but I use “facial tissue” and “adhesive bandage” all the time with few ill reactions. Occasionally some easily-amused person will get some immense pleasure out of it, or think I’m dumb. I usually just look at these people strangely.
Er, I’m sorry. I wasn’t thinking clearly. I’ll try to keep from debating my opinions in this forum. Please ignore my middle paragraph.
Gads, you must sound like a walking TV commercial. I have never heard anyone in real life use the terms “facial tissue” or “adhesive bandage”. Many people use “tissue” rather than “kleenex”, sure, but “adhesive bandage”? By the time you get that out, you’ve likely bled to death. Do you also say that you have the “Microsoft® Windows® operating system” installed on your “Dell PrecisionTM Workstation”, or do you run Windows on your Dell, like the rest of the world?
I’ve got to agree with two points, one that they’re called Legos, and two that while companies have to try to protect their trademarks, there’s just no way they can affect general usage. Microsoft has to refer to its operating system in the above way, but everyone else in the world just has Windows on their computer.
There’s an SD article on this subject, http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/meponym.html. Hey, Achernar, what do you use to refer to a dumpster that’s not a “Dumpster®”? “Very large trash receptacle, usually found behind stores, that can be lifted only be a special kind of garbage truck”?
I don’t walk a lot. And I speak quickly. I also say “television”; that should give you some idea of the neverending agony that people who have verbal conversations with me go through. 
As for the "very large trash receptacle, usually found behind stores, that can be lifted only be a special kind of garbage truck"s, I don’t know. Probably trash bins or trash receptacles. If it’s necessary to point out the size, I might include “very large”.
In french-speaking Switzerland (and I would assume also in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, etc…) people use the word “légo” as a generic term, as in “Range tes légos!” = “Put away your legos!”
Incidentally, “Life Savers” and “Twinkies” have the reverse of the trademark problem that “Lego” has.
Namely, the trademarked name is supposed to be used in the plural only.
You’re not supposed to say “a Twinkie” or “a Life Saver.” It’s supposed to be “a Twinkies brand snack cake” or just “a Twinkies,” as bizzare as “a Twinkies” sounds.
I distinctly remember a Life Savers commercial that came out during their “Life Savers: A Part of Living” campaign. They had one line where an old man told his grandson or nephew:
Old man: “Here, have a Wint-O-Green Life Savers.”
A Life Savers. My English grammar instincts reeled from the shock.
A big Lego enthusiast of mine gets really irritated when people say “Legos” since Lego itself is plural, so always say “LEGO” and not legos! 
Maybe in Oz, but we Merkins would definitely, always and without a doubt call one brick a “lego.”
Then you Merkins would definitely, always and without a doubt be wrong
Of course anyone can call anything whatever they like. But then lots of people say things like “my bad” and “supposably”.
“Evidence”? What about the evidence that millions of americans say “Legos” and are going to continue to do so? When it comes to language and usage, as far as I’m concerned, actual usage trumps prescription.
And what, exactly, is wrong with “my bad”?
I’ve just realised why I’m getting testy. It’s the use of terms like “wrong” and “improper.” I haven’t told anyone who says “Lego blocks” is wrong or improper. Say it the way you want to say it, but I ask you to reëxamine your standards for declaring someone else’s usage wrong or improper.
I say “bandage,” except when I’m being silly. Then I say “Could I have a adhesive bandage being one of those or similar to those marketed under the BAND-AID® brand, a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson?”