> 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.