English usage

[randy_cooprider1]

The off topic forum has been disabled so if this question is inappropriate, please erase it. In reading text from other country

participants English usage is not what I was taught. Granted I am an old fogey but when and why is it correct to say "Nikon

have..." (singular subject, plural verb) rather than "Nikon has.." (singular subject singular verb). Has Nikon (or have Nikon)

become plural or has "have" become singular?

[User_3804048]

<p>I think that it depends upon whether you regard a corporation as an entity, with the singular verb, or as a group of individuals, with the plural verb. The choice depends upon the country of the writer. The UK usage is, I believe, to prefer the plural form, and the US the singular.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>How well do you write in languages other than your mother tongue?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>In U.S. English, it is "Nikon has." In British English it is "Nikon have." Donald's explanation of the reasoning is correct.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[thomas_k.]

My language skills are poor - this is why I am a photographer ;-)

[JosvanEekelen]

Well, a picture tells more than a thousand words :-)

[q.g._de_bakker]

Or does it <i>say</i> more? ;-)

[John Seaman]

<p>I believe both forms are perfectly acceptable in UK English, although "Nikon have" may be more common. For example The Royal Nave has commissioned its latest aircraft carrier. The Church of England has ordained its first woman bishop. Rolls Royce has unveiled its new Silver Ghost. Oh dear now I'm not so sure.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Donald, thanks for the explanation. I am not a lawyer, but I think a corporation has legal status as a single

entity in the United States but usages change as time goes by and I try to (pant, pant) keep up.

[colin carron]

<blockquote>

<p>In British English it is "Nikon have".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a brit I would have gone for the singular "Nikon has" making Nikon a corporate entity. But probably both will do. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nikon is a company. You're seldom alone in, or as a, company.

[JDMvW]

<p>The exact strength and vigor of the English Language is that the "grammarians" have never got control of the language, although high-school English teachers have tried.<br /> English in all its myriad forms is becoming the koine tongue of the modern age, and it will not be shackled by pettifoggers who actually seem to think that Latin grammar has some relevance for this Germanic pidgin.<br /> In short, as a local speaker of the language told me here some years ago:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It don't make no nevermind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>English accommodates many variations of the same expressions, thus allowing fruitful ambiguity and subtle shades of meaning.</p>

<p>By the way, QG, here in the USA, corporations are "people," but somehow never get put in jail.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>Colin is right: "...both will do."<br>

The BBC World Service's Learning English segment puts it this way:<br>

========================<br>

Here are two example sentences: The Government IS going to cut back on public spending. They HAVE decided this is necessary in the current economic climate. My question is, could I have said: The Government ARE... and It HAS decided...?<br /> <br />We can use singular or plural verbs with many collective nouns, and government is one of these. Singular and plural forms are often mixed as are the pronouns that refer back to the nouns in the previous sentence. So, all four of your options are correct.<br /> <br />family / team / committee / firm<br /> <br />Collective nouns refer to groups of people usually. Our choice of singular or plural verb form often depends on whether we are thinking of the group as an impersonal unit (in which case we use the singular verb - and relative pronoun which) or as a collection of individuals (in which case we use the plural verb form - and relative pronoun who).<br>

=====================<br>

English usage is a fickle mistress and changes with the passage of time and changes in place.<br>

Geoffrey Chaucer (who wrote in Middle English) was already struggling with change in the 14th century:</p>

<p><em>"Ye knowe ek that in forme of speche is chaunge <br /> Withinne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho <br /> That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge <br /> Us thinketh hem, and yet thei spake hem so. . . ." </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

You know that forms of speech change<br />Within a thousand years, and words that<br />Then were prized, now seem silly and <br />We think them strange, and yet they spoke them that way...<em><br /></em></p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Gotta say it: it bugs me to hear words that represent a collective -- words like team, faculty, Monsanto, band, etc.-- as plurals.<br /><br />"Chevrolet are coming out with a new car." <br /><br />Fingernails on a blackboard.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I propose we use the word "isar" or "havs" in place of either. Canon isar launching a new camera. Canon havs launched a new camera. That should solve the problem.</p>

<p>As a Brit in the US I'm terminally confused. Sometimes I use the singular, sometimes the plural. However I've never had anyone fail to understand what I'm saying, so perhaps the choice is of little consequence in this case. I've weaned myself off colour and centre and that's about my limit.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

So, are Kodak plural or are it not?

[Charles_Webster]

<p>And we get even more fun and confusion when we verb nouns, as "Have you googled that?"<br>

As JDM says, English is a flexible language, mis-spoken even by native speakers. So long as communication occurs, it seldom makes a difference. Only lawyers and technical writers live and die by the accuracy of their prose.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>What Donald and Craig and others said. When I lived in London, it used to grate on me when I saw something in the sports pages like 'Arsenal have got to maintain a solid defense in the upcoming match.'</p>

<p>There's a tendency to in U.K. English to use the plural form for corporate entities, although it's not an absolute rule. Nothing to do with mother tongue, or misuse of the language.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>As a brit I would have gone for the singular "Nikon has" making Nikon a corporate entity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too. And as we are British, we are obviously correct!!</p>

[chris_waller]

As a former teacher of English, mainly to foreign exchange students, I shall quote no less an authority than H W Fowler ( 'Modern English Usage'.)

 

"Names of institutions and political entities, e.g. the United Nations, the United States, the Vatican, the Commons, the Congress, are always treated as singular whether the form of the name is singular or plural."

 

Hence, 'Nikon has ...'.

[qalam]

Fowler is a prescriptive grammarian, which makes him a close ally of English teachers, who often like to impose absolute

rules on their students.

 

Apparently the author and proofreader of the 13th amendment did not share Fowler's opinion.

 

"Article XIII (Amendment 13

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly

convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

Nota bene: United States...THEIR jurisdiction.

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I think it's an English thing. They have a different way of saying things from Americans. I remember Robert Plant once saying "we went to hospital" rather than saying we went to the hospital. Yeah it's those English freaks screwing up the language.......but then I guess they invented it so what can we do. ;) ;)</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Prior to the American Civil War, it was "The United States are.." After the Civil War it was "The United States is ..." The states were then deemed to be united as one nation.

 

Fortunately most American sports teams are plural in name - The New York Yankees are ... The Boston Red Sox have ....

[William Kahn]

<p><em>England and America are two countries separated by a common language.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>George Bernard Shaw</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The tip of the iceberg. There are so many variants in the language, many of them being equally acceptable in normal and even exacting use.</p>

<p>I am amused by the expression, "If I were in that situation, I would..." rather than "If I was in that situation, I would..." And there are also the considerable regional differences in the vocabulary and use of the English language (Britain vs. USA vs. Canada vs. Australia-New Zealand, etc.).</p>

<p>When translating texts from French to English for my francophone friends there is the luxury of being able to use pretty much any variant possible and it being accepted. Going from English to French is another thing, much more difficult, in view of the exactness, the form or the multiple tenses of the French language. </p>