In Great Britain, company names are considered plural, so they are combined with plural verbs. In America we frequently use a singular verb with a company name, then combine it with a plural pronoun. "Pentax has the resources to develop a DSLR. They will probably release it this spring." I'm sorry, but the Brits are correct on this one. Hell, they invented the language <g>. Paul
Fred wrote: > > >> Bob (similarly tooth-grated despite background as linguist, > >> especially about split-infinitives, a particular habit of our > >> transatlantic cousins) > > > Split is a bad way to have one's infinitives, all right. And while > > I may split infinitives with Yankee abandon, at least we know the > > difference between a comma and a period. Have you noticed that > > your countrymen are preferring commas these days where periods go? > > Check out Phil Askey at dpreview.com. He does it all the time. > > Drives me bats. > > Here's a one-side-of-the-pond-to-the-other difference: Why do the > British tend to say such things as "Pentax are...", "Pentax > were...", "Pentax have...", etc., when (because Pentax is a singular > entity, not plural) the expressions should logically be "Pentax > is...", "Pentax was...", and "Pentax has..."? > > Fred
