> I think you are misattributing the rules in this case. What you seem to be missing is that when people say "legos" they are not referring to a game like your example of snooker. Legos refers to "lego bricks".

Then "Legos" is still wrong because the components are called "bricks", "pieces" or similar.

> Thus the probably extremely common sentence used by parents all over America is "Please cleanup your legos".

Just because it is common it doesn't mean it is correct. Plenty of people misunderstand computer jargon, it doesn't mean they're correct either.

> And that refers to duplo bricks and off brand building block copies as well.

This is basically an admission that the term is being used incorrectly if people are using it for stuff that literally isn't Lego too. :)

> So basically, for it to be technically incorrect, you have to argue that "legos" is an incorrect substitution for "lego bricks".

I'd already supplied lots of examples of how it's not a suitable substitution.

> it is now technically correct as well as coloquially common.

It isn't technically correct. Colloquially common, sure. But I've given numerous examples of how it's not technically correct. Even Lego themselves don't use the term "Legos" -- which should be evidence enough that it's not technically correct.

> Just like many dictionaries have now added an additional definition for the word "literally", making sentences like, "I am literally dead right now" both colloquially common and technically correct.

This "'literally' is misused by the modern generation" sentiment is actually an inaccurate modern meme. The virtual usage of the term -- used when people want to exaggerate a point -- has been in used since the 1700s. 'A Dictionary of the English Language'[0] was published in 1755 (nearly 200 years before the first edition of esteemed the Oxford Dictionary[1]). The first American English dictionary[2] was another ~50 years after that. Thus the virtual definition of 'literally' is not actually considered slang since it pre-dates modern dictionaries. Ironically its more colloquially incorrect using the virtual term than it is literally incorrect. Thus you'll often find the virtual term used in older texts by highly regarded writers:

> Among the meaning of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (Is the extended use of literally slang?)

This is all stuff that's really easy to research. All the text is public domain and online for anyone to read. Likewise with the "Legos" slang, you can see on Lego's[3] website how they refer to the product vs the components. Thus none of this requires us to guess at whether common vernacular is formal, because it's all already published online for all to reference. The issue is many conflate colloquial slang with formal writing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_La...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

[2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Compendious_Dictionary_of_t...

[3] Which is correct because I'm attributing ownership here