Hi, Paul. > In Great Britain, company names are considered plural, so they are > combined with plural verbs.
...which to me seems illogical. ;-) > 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." Well, that is just plain sloppy language (similar, as far as I am concerned, to the lazy use of "their" or "them" instead of "his or her" or "him or her", etc. In any event, that should not be used as a justification for considering Pentax Corporation to be a plural entity. "Pentax has the resources to develop a DSLR. ~IT~ will probably release the long-awaited critter this spring." ;-) > I'm sorry, but the Brits are correct on this one. I disagree. (Of course, I'm used to standing by myself - <g>.) > Hell, they invented the language <g>. 1. I am not sure the term "invented" really applies here. It mostly just sort of happened (as indeed is the case with almost any language). 2. That does not mean that common British usage is necessarily logically correct. (Please do not infer that this post is intended to claim that common American English usage is always correct - far from it - <groan>.) 3. Despite my original criticism here (and other foibles), I am grateful that I live in a country that does speak (more or less - <g>) that strange but intensely beautiful language known as English. I apologize for all the likely grammatical errors that I've perpetrated in this post... ;-) Fred
