> 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.
It's firmly 'Lego' in the UK.
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!)
> Lego have [...]
[the company] *has.
Apple have announced a new iPhone. The New York Yankees are playing tonight. The Board were due to meet yesterday. Etc.
It's perhaps clearer if you add a description of the company:
> Apple, an American company, has announced a new iPhone.
'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.
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
Yes. People aren't mistaken when they use the version that is more unique to British English.
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.
(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.)