From the chosen answer:

> Of course everyone is free to comply with these corporate demands, but the Lego Group has no authority over the English language to regulate it in this way. So if you want to feel guilty about using “Legos”, understand that the only thing you are guilty of is not obeying the demands of a Danish corporation, not for violating the rules of English grammar.

*American English grammar.

It's firmly 'Lego' in the UK.

Considering there is English grammar authority either, I guess you can never be violating English grammar rules? You are merely in conflict with some of the English dictionaries out there. So even if the scale is different, it's sort of the same.

Yes, and I find this argument quite tiresome (mainly due to its frequency) on English.SE - Google ngrams are really interesting, but it's not all I'm interested in. If something's a modern 'corruption' (by whoever considers it such) then all an ngram's going to show you is yes (or no) it has (resp. not) been corrupted.

Imagine if English (Language) teachers took the same stance. A+ everyone, if that's how you say it, you're correct, there is no wrong.

(And then is ESL different? Seems like racism is the effective conclusion!)

This reminds me of how Adobe Photoshop branding guidelines [1] explicitly forbid the use of "photoshop" as a verb or common noun, and yet I don't think anyone considers these to be improper English grammar.

1: https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html

[Given the nature of this thread, I'm sorry, but I have to do this ;)]

> Lego have [...]

[the company] *has.

It's a plural - groups of people are traditionally plural in English.

Apple have announced a new iPhone. The New York Yankees are playing tonight. The Board were due to meet yesterday. Etc.

In UK English. American and Canadian English treats groups as singular, even when the name itself is a plural. "Apple has", "The United Nations has", etc.

It's not wrong to use British English. People using it don't need to be corrected to use American English.

So why are you trying to make a counter-correction?

I'm not telling them to use a plural.

I'm telling them that people who use a plural aren't doing so out of ignorance and don't need to be corrected as if they're making a mistake.

It's (it! You said it yourself!) not a plural, it's a singular company.

It's perhaps clearer if you add a description of the company:

> Apple, an American company, has announced a new iPhone.

> it! You said it yourself!

'It' refers to the word there. The thing the word refers to is a plural.

> It's not a plural, it's a singular company.

That's just not traditional in English. What is a company except a group of people? That's what the word 'company' literally means.

Most people in English speaking countries outside US influence would say:

> Apple, an American company, have announced a new iPhone.

I strongly disagree, as does the aforementioned style guide, as does Google Ngram Viewer (BrE even): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=company+have%2...

What about 'only one of the companies [...]', what'll you say next?

A singular company is formed of a plurality of parts, yes, just as a millipede has many legs.

I don't understand - are you claiming it's just more common to use the American grammar in all venues? Yes I'm sure it is. But it doesn't make it wrong to use British English that you need to go out of your way to correct them as if they're making a mistake and don't know any better.

Or are you claiming it has never been commonly accepted British grammar to make company names plural? If you think that then I'm afraid you're just factually mistaken.

Can you please provide something more substantive than just being afraid I'm factually mistaken? I've provided a link to Google Ngram Viewer, a reference to The Economist's Style Guide, and an anecdotal experience of being a native British English speaker to the contrary.

I don't refuse to believe that I'm simply only aware of the Americanism; but I'm not willing to take an internet comment (by itself) as a correction.

If anything when I hear people say blah company 'have' done such and such, I think of that as an American/modern personalisation.

I agree completely with this answer, and I think that's consistent with 'Lego has confirmed' here': https://english.stackexchange.com/a/341284/52014 I'd only add that I consider the 'shorthand for a group of people' strictly colloquial (and oral).

If all you want is some evidence that it is considered normal in British English, then for example Fowler's under 'collective nouns' on page 162 of the current edition which says exactly that:

> In British English it is in order to use either a plural verb or a singular verb after most collective nouns, so long as attendant pronouns are made to follow suit.

And then it follows on with examples from British literature in the wild such as news reports on how 'MI5 were living in the past'.

Or for example this BBC article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/l...

> The BBC is / are planning to introduce 35 minute news broadcasts in the spring.

> it is in order to use either

So you object to my correction rather than consider the inverse solely correct?

Fair enough. I have hitherto considered 'the company have announced' incorrect; I'll check that, but I don't like it for my own use.

> So you object to my correction rather than consider the inverse solely correct?

Yes. People aren't mistaken when they use the version that is more unique to British English.

I stand by that principle, (in fact I'd be tempted to say something stronger, heh) I'd just never recognised this as an example of it.

This is a difference between British and North American English. Americans consider a company to be singular; Brits, plural.

I'm British.

(And The Economist's 'Style Guide' 10ed. concurs. (I'm not being selective beyond the extent to which I already am by only having that style guide.) It is of course a global publication, despite 'being' British, but it's entry on 'Americanisms' makes it pretty clear ('sparingly') it prefers a BrE starting point. I can't find anything more explicit on that.)

Alright. Clearly it’s not a consensus view then. Still, every time I’ve heard things like “Google have”, it’s been (ESL, or) British English speakers. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered it in American English.