39

How could I change this sentence in order for it to sound more natural and easier to be understood by a toddler?

I've been using 'unassailable' or 'take them apart' but both sound strange.

200_success
  • 8,133
  • 1
  • 31
  • 46
MsRose
  • 399
  • 3
  • 3

10 Answers10

97

There's nothing wrong with saying "Take apart your legos*† before putting them back into the box." (Or, equivalently, "Take your legos apart before putting them back into the box.") "Take apart" is a fairly common phrasal verb, and it's about as simple and straightforward a phrase as you can get to express this to a toddler — or anyone, really: it's not baby talk or otherwise condescending, it's just a simple phrase for a simple concept.

*American English usage considers the "lego" to primarily be the block itself, and only by normal pluralization (etc) to be the collection of such blocks. British English is the reverse. Since you put "Legos" in the title of your question, I assume you're using American English, which conveniently is my native dialect.
†As a generic term for a type of block toy, there's no need to capitalize it. The trademark is in all-caps anyway: LEGO®.

Nathan Tuggy
  • 9,513
  • 20
  • 40
  • 56
  • 18
    I'm surprised this got a downvote. When I looked up "Take apart the Legos" on Google, it had more hit results than disassemble or undo combined. More often than not, this is how I'd say it. – J.R. Sep 22 '16 at 19:40
  • @J.R.: I figure I got my random downvote quota in for the week, at least? Maybe the month, if I'm lucky! :P – Nathan Tuggy Sep 22 '16 at 19:51
  • @j.r. I'm very surprised, too. For some reason I think it's mostly non-native speakers who downvote answers like this. This is absolutely the most common way of saying this. – user428517 Sep 22 '16 at 23:41
  • @sgroves: I dunno about non-native speakers picking on this. Maybe it's my choice to throw in a side note on properly capitalizing a genericized trademark? That's the only thing I can really think of. – Nathan Tuggy Sep 22 '16 at 23:46
  • This is the only thing I would ever use with my kids. "Disassemble" and "dismantle" are both way too formal. "Dismantle" also has an association with machinery/mechanical complexity that is ill-suited for use with an object assembled from blocks, even blocks that attach to one another. – hBy2Py Sep 23 '16 at 01:35
  • @sgroves - I don't like to speculate about the source of downvotes. I can think of a few reasons someone might downvote this. (For one, the O.P. mentions "take apart" in the question, so maybe the downvoters thought this wasn't all that useful.) Anyhow, it's getting way more upvotes than downvotes, so the system is working as a whole. – J.R. Sep 23 '16 at 10:29
  • 10
    @J.R. - At a guess the downvote is the pluralisation of "legos". If I hadn't already read Nathan's comment on the question itself explaining that it's common in the US, I'd have been horrified to see this from a native speaker. – AndyT Sep 23 '16 at 10:55
  • @AndyT It felt obvious to me from the outset considering the "two nations divided by a common language" – learner Sep 24 '16 at 21:20
  • @learner: Hyperbole aside, most of English is the same between countries and regions, so expecting downvotes to come because of regional differences on any arbitrary answer about anything would be foolish indeed. – Nathan Tuggy Sep 24 '16 at 22:14
  • Yes there is - it should be "take apart your lego" ;) The pluralisation of lego as lego in the US does seem to be slowly taking hold - although "legos" is still far more common. "Take apart" is totally fine. – niico Sep 25 '16 at 00:46
  • I'm a lifelong resident of the U.S. who first started playing with LEGO in 1963 and who doesn't intend to stop. I will never say "legos" or be able to hear or read "legos" with equanimity. I'm glad to hear there is a trend away from that form. I find "take apart" to be fine, by the way. – David K Sep 26 '16 at 04:09
  • Admittedly, I can't think of a reason why a toddler would care whether you said "LEGO" or "legos". – David K Sep 26 '16 at 04:15
  • 1
    "Take your lego(s) apart ..." works, too. Although personally I'd say "Take apart [the thing you just built]", since you don't actually build Lego unless you work at the Lego factory, and you don't take them apart unless you work at a recycling facility. – Jason C Sep 26 '16 at 14:43
14

Another option is to dismantle your Legos.

  1. to disassemble or pull down; take apart:

    They dismantled the machine and shipped it in pieces.

Ghotir
  • 878
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
13

"Disassemble your Legos" sounds appropriate, but talking to a toddler probably "undo your Legos" sounds easier.

  • 11
    I think "take apart" would be much more likely to be understood by a toddler. I can't imagine anyone saying "undo your Legos" to a toddler. – user428517 Sep 22 '16 at 23:42
  • @sgroves undo your opinion, maybe they would understand :D – Pierre Arlaud Sep 23 '16 at 08:11
  • 16
    Undo is poor phrasing. The opposite is do, and so "Do your lego" doesn't work. You assemble, or you put together lego. So disassemble is correct, or take apart for simplicity. – i-CONICA Sep 23 '16 at 09:03
  • 2
    @i-CONICA: Your logic is flawed. We do say "undo your laces" and "undo the gate", although "do your laces" and "do the gate" don't work. – TonyK Sep 23 '16 at 09:32
  • 7
    @TonyK that's interesting - I'd say that "do your laces" sounds completely natural to me whereas I've never heard anyone say "do/undo the gate"! (British English speaker) – Tom Fenech Sep 23 '16 at 09:52
  • @TomFenech It's still not an exact opposite. I'm not native but I think you would "undo a change" but you "make a change". Also, how would you undo a homework? :D – Pierre Arlaud Sep 23 '16 at 10:01
  • @Pierre I guess we run the risk of going off-topic here but broadly speaking, I would say that "undo" can serve as the opposite for "do" and "make" (which covers your example related to "change"). As for homework, I'm not sure what it would mean to "undo" it! – Tom Fenech Sep 23 '16 at 10:16
  • 1
    @TonyK You can say "do the gate", but it doesn't have a single meaning. It could mean unlock, open, close or lock the gate (or any combination of those actions), depending on context. May also say "get the gate" which has essentially the same meaning. – Anthony Grist Sep 23 '16 at 10:48
  • "Do" and "undo" both have an implied action, depending on context. Whilst you wouldn't normally say "do your Legos," you may actually say it as an implied "do your Lego [model/s]." R.e. homework and such, "undo" doesn't make sense because logically you can't "undo" homework. – Dan Sep 23 '16 at 13:19
  • 2
    I ran a Google Ngram search on "do the gate" vs "undo the gate", with interesting results: "undo the gate" was much more common until about 1930, after which they became more or less equal in frequency. But almost all Google search results for "undo the gate" are relevant, whereas almost all search results for "do the gate" are not (e.g. "How do the gate oxide thicknesses for the two capacitors compare?"). I am rather surprised by the current rarity of "undo the gate" -- it seems perfectly natural to me, and I was born well after 1930. – TonyK Sep 23 '16 at 13:33
  • 1
    @TonyK. I can't even guess what "undo the gate" means, and I'm a native speaker of Irish English. – TRiG Sep 23 '16 at 13:37
  • @TRiG (and others), "undo the gate" means "unfasten the gate" (like "undo your shoelace/buttons/seatbelt"). Is it really so rare? (I speak southern British English.) – TonyK Sep 23 '16 at 13:47
  • 5
    *Given all comments posted so far, it appears that the correct/common usage of "do and undo" could be the subject for a new question :)*. –  Sep 23 '16 at 13:49
  • @i-CONICA there's nothing poor about saying undo, I took the OP's (xxxxxx) suggestion as meaning: "Here is a simple expression which small children (toddler) will understand easily". But not before suggesting the more formal, and perfectly acceptable suggestion disassemble. – Mari-Lou A Sep 23 '16 at 16:03
  • I have never in 40 years heard someone say "undo lego" when referring to disassembling something built out of them. – Almo Sep 23 '16 at 17:53
  • disassemble sounds overly elaborate and strange - undo sounds plain weird and un-natural - and is probably incorrect. (I am from UK). – niico Sep 25 '16 at 00:48
  • "open the gate" - "undo your pants" - "undo lego" absolutely not. – niico Sep 25 '16 at 00:49
11

Put them together and take them apart

Construct them and then de-constuct them

Assemble and disassemble

Make and break

Connect and disconnect

Build and destroy

Create and start again

Joe Morrin
  • 127
  • 3
  • 2
    I'd feel it'd go more like Create/Destroy and Build/tear down but that's just me – unknownprotocol Sep 23 '16 at 01:03
  • 2
    "Destroy" and "Tear down" sounds a bit drastic. The special case with lego is that the building blocks can be used again -they are not broken. Specially for a toddler, it will be less drastic to "take apart" than "destroy". – awe Sep 23 '16 at 07:53
  • 1
    To make Lego bricks you'd need an injection moulding machine. – Andrew Morton Sep 23 '16 at 14:47
9

No one has thought of explaining why the expression unbuild is inappropriate.

After all, if we do a belt up, (fasten) we can also undo it.

Likewise, you can fix your hair into a bun or ponytail, and later unfix it.

We lock the car door when we leave, and unlock it when we come back.

Yet, to build and unbuild lego (or legos) will sound weird to many native speakers.

If we can assemble an Ikea wardrobe, i.e. we fix the pieces together; we ought to say: unassemble, when its time to move to a new home. But unassembled refers to the flat pack that we have bought at Ikea, the wardrobe that is in pieces and lies patiently in its box waiting to be assembled. Instead, the correct verb to use is disassemble.

English is never 100% logical, why shouldn't a child's construction be unconstructed? The word exists, but unconstructed does not mean unbuild, it means "not (yet) constructed". Well blow me down...

I suppose to unbuild something would be like asking a partner to uncook dinner because it was unappetizing, once a meal has been cooked, it cannot be uncooked. In fact, uncooked food means food which is raw, or has not been cooked.

So, I think the same theory applies to building. For example, when a sandcastle is built, the action is completed. A sandcastle will not last for days, but it might survive for a few hours, until the heat from the sun dries the wet sand and the castle crumbles, or until it is washed away by the tide.

A different action must intervene, in order to reverse the process of building. And, by necessity, it must be destructive. Destruction, not uncreation, is the opposite of creation. The sandcastle must decay; crumble; disintegrate; be knocked down; collapse; or fall apart, in order for it to return to its original state.

A child's lego construction must therefore be destroyed, in some measure, i.e. taken apart if the lego bricks are to return to their original state.

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
8

Put away your Lego

You put away toys, and Lego is a toy like any other. Put away your bike, put away your paints, put away your screaming ninja turkey...

Rich
  • 445
  • 2
  • 7
  • 4
    I suggested this partly because it sounds awfully micromanaging to make disassembly a condition of tidying up after or during play. – Rich Sep 22 '16 at 22:53
  • 2
    In a few days this webpage will be the only Google result for "screaming ninja turkey". At the moment there are none. Congrats. – Chro Sep 23 '16 at 10:43
  • 6
    This doesn't answer the main thrust of the question: the taking apart of the models before putting them away. – AndyT Sep 23 '16 at 10:53
  • @AndyT except that even a toddler (who is capable of assembling them in the first place) shouldn't have a problem grasping that the assembled model will not fit back where it belongs, and logically conclude that it should be disassembled first. – Doktor J Sep 24 '16 at 03:49
  • @DoktorJ Some of them fit back into the box in an assembled state. Let the toddler figure out whether his does fit or not. But I wonder how you get them out of the box without destroying the box in the first place. This was easier with 90s lego, when the box was opened at the perforated half-circle, than it is today without these perforations... – Alexander Sep 25 '16 at 00:52
  • 4
    This is ELL, not Parenting. The question is about the appropriate way to phrase the specific request, not whether a more generic request would be better. – Matthew Read Sep 25 '16 at 20:16
  • You would teach the phrase "put together" before you taught the word "assemble". That's in part because the two words are already familiar, whereas the second is not, unless you are misheard as commingling the words "ass" and "elbow". – jaxter Sep 26 '16 at 00:27
4

In a similar vein to "take apart," "break up" works well (and, to me, feels more natural) in this context as you are breaking up the whole into its smaller parts.

Ant P
  • 140
  • 3
  • That would be well understood, I think. But do you want to encourage young kids to "break" anything? ;-) I envisage "smashing" happening... – Dan Sep 23 '16 at 13:20
  • @Dan I don't think "breaking" necessarily has destructive connotations in all contexts and certainly "breaking up" is very different from just "breaking"... I think that's a non-issue. – Ant P Sep 23 '16 at 13:37
  • You're likely right; I was being light-hearted. But still, "break up" feels more destructive than "take apart," especially to a young hyper kid. – Dan Sep 23 '16 at 13:44
  • I (an AmE native) would be inclined toward "break down" as more similar to "disassemble" or "dismantle" (preserving bricks or modules for reuse/reassembly). "Break up" connotes "destroy" (and thence dispose of or recycle plastic material), although I can accept it as applied to destroying the finished structure since the basic components (LEGO bricks) are inherently modular and explicitly intended for reuse. Or follow with the ever popular "You know what I mean!" "Tear down" would also work (but not "tear up"). – BillR Sep 24 '16 at 22:16
  • @BillR interesting one - to me "break down" works well in certain contexts, where the process is systematic: breaking down a problem, breaking down an engine. For lego, though, "break up" feels more natural - possibly because it is somewhat destructive in nature: the process of taking the whole and breaking it up into pieces, where those pieces aren't really components... just pieces. "Break down" lego sounds more systematic than the process actually is - I don't break down a lego construction, I break it up. – Ant P Sep 24 '16 at 22:28
  • @Ant P I understand. Some differences are awfully fine. We used "break down the [cardboard] boxes" for flattening them whether for subsequent storage and reuse (avoid ripping or bending) or just to fit in a container (trash or recycle depending upon location) efficiently. My contexts are a moving and storage co., several liquor or grocery stores, and a large restaurant. – BillR Sep 24 '16 at 23:29
  • @BillR break down does indeed work better in those contexts - "break up" would generally breaking into pieces, which doesn't work for flattening but is a closer fit for taking a lego structure apart (where you literally break the structure into pieces until there's no structure left). – Ant P Sep 24 '16 at 23:33
  • @Ant P Personally, I would tear down an engine before (or as a major step in) rebuilding it. I might break it down if packing it for shipment (e.g., military deployment -- but they tend to have their own jargon). While interesting, I'll stop here as I've veered into a conversation (however enjoyable and enlightening: thanks). – BillR Sep 24 '16 at 23:44
  • I think there are differences between Am and Brit uses of the phrase "break up." In Brit, they "break up" a ship as part of salvage, meaning to separate it into smaller and smaller parts, but not in a destructive fashion. In AmE, however, break up denotes a sudden, spontaneous and violent disassembly, as in "the ship broke up on the rocks in the storm", or "the spaceprobe broke up on impact with the planet's surface".
    In Brit, then, it's a transitive verb, but in AmE it's intransitive (has no object noun, if unclear).     – jaxter Sep 26 '16 at 00:32
1

I've no idea if this is a Br Eng - only expression, or more regional than that - but I might say 'Take it to bits' for this kind of situation.

peterG
  • 329
  • 2
  • 6
  • I believe it's more BrE, but it's fairly intelligible for most AmE as well. Not sure teaching a toddler that is the best idea in America, though; it might sound a bit strange. – Nathan Tuggy Oct 13 '16 at 06:48
0

I agree take apart sounds the best for a toddler, but what I would say is "put your legos back in the tub/box".

The toddler legos come in a big plastic tub. If you bought several tubs then you likely store them all in a bit bin or box. Telling them, then showing them putting the legos back in the tub requires taking them apart, is probably better then trying to explain vocabulary to someone that is barely speaking.

That said, I would personally use disassemble in place of take apart. No reason not to start the vocabulary building with simple house hold tasks.

coteyr
  • 317
  • 1
  • 8
  • I would have voted this answer up but for suggesting to use disassemble to a toddler. It just sounds formal for everyday language. – learner Sep 24 '16 at 21:28
  • tomato/tomato. It's how I was thought when I was that young. My grandparents, especially, always used formal or odd words for everyday tasks. Works better then a word a day. – coteyr Sep 25 '16 at 00:42
0

I think the word "dismantle" might do, as you are not actually 'breaking' the Lego pieces. The Lego assembly may not involve assemblies that we perceive as being "built", e.g., would placing a brick under a Lego's man count as building? What about placing an screens obj its helmet?

Robotnik
  • 105
  • 3
Jack Maddington
  • 495
  • 4
  • 11
  • 18