29 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
29 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Have and Has: Can nobody get it right?

by WordsofWorth
24 replies
This is one copywriting error that really annoys me, and I see it everywhere. The mistake is made on blogs, in books, in newspapers and on the BBC website - it doesn't seem to matter who they are, or how high their supposed standards, writers still struggle with the idea that companies are singular.

I know the difference because it was drummed into me when I worked on the website for a leading retailer here in the UK 10 years ago. My manager at the time told of how, when he worked on a video games magazine, his manager would literally hit him over the head whenever he wrote 'Sony have' instead of 'Sony has', and he passed that ethos onto me.

Companies are singular so, when writing about the latest announcements from Google, it would be written as 'Google has announced' and 'Google is doing' rather than 'Google have announced' and 'Google are doing'.

I cringe whenever I see it. I even read a blog post last week, written by a professional copywriter, talking about how Google was dumbing down the English language by not correcting the misuse of apostrophes in searches (such as 'mens clothing' - when it does correct 'womens clothing') and in this blog they referred to Google as plural. They wrote: "Do Google not know"...

*sigh*
  • Profile picture of the author vespito
    I feel your pain. That's up there with everyone using the word "less" instead of "fewer". If I ever go to a grocery store and see a sign that says "fewer than 15 items", I'll probably have a hear attack.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5273552].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AG Hohwald
    I expect more out of the Googles.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5274032].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Don Schenk
    Unfortunately once this type of mistake is made sooooo often, it can become the accepted grammar!

    Take for example, the infinitive "to graduate." Schools graduate the students. One is graduated by the school. The student does not graduate. The student is graduated.

    My first year of college, I had a professor who drummed this into our heads. The man was a holy terror!

    Forty years later I used the "was graduated" correctly in a document, and had a friend proofread it. He flagged my "was graduated" as being incorrect. I then looked online at several "grammar" Websites, and discovered "I graduated" is now considered correct, and "I was graduated" is considered old fashion.

    Go figure!

    :-Don
    Signature

    Studies prove happier people have massively more success. It has worked for me. Use this one trick too... Click Here

    Total Competition Stomper - Simply the most powerful tactic your IM or Offline business will ever use... See it here!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5274122].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NickC
    This isn't a copywriting error, and it has nothing to do with standards.

    In British English, lots of collective nouns - including companies, departments, bands, groups and teams - are treated as plurals.

    Here's what three authoritative sites say about collective nouns:

    dictionary.com

    In British English, such nouns are commonly treated as plurals: The corporation are holding their annual meeting. The team are playing well. The government are in agreement.
    thefreedictionary.com

    in British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. [...] Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team.
    oxforddictionaries.com

    In the US, collective nouns are usually followed by a singular verb (the crowd was nervous), while in Britain it is more common to follow a collective noun with a plural verb (the band were late for their own concert).
    So you, your manager, and your manager's manager may prefer the American English form, but saying "Google are" is perfectly proper in British English.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5277128].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WordsofWorth
      Originally Posted by NickC View Post

      In the US, collective nouns are usually followed by a singular verb (the crowd was nervous), while in Britain it is more common to follow a collective noun with a plural verb (the band were late for their own concert).
      There is a difference between 'common' and 'correct'. A lot of things are common in the English language, that doesn't make them right.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5277207].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
        Banned
        Originally Posted by WordsofWorth View Post

        This is one copywriting error that really annoys me, and I see it everywhere. The mistake is made on blogs, in books, in newspapers and on the BBC website – it doesn’t seem to matter who they are, or how high their supposed standards, writers still struggle with the idea that companies are singular.

        I know the difference because it was drummed into me when I worked on the website for a leading retailer here in the UK 10 years ago. My manager at the time told of how, when he worked on a video games magazine, his manager would literally hit him over the head whenever he wrote ‘Sony have’ instead of ‘Sony has’, and he passed that ethos onto me.

        Companies are singular so, when writing about the latest announcements from Google, it would be written as ‘Google has announced’ and ‘Google is doing’ rather than ‘Google have announced’ and ‘Google are doing’.

        I cringe whenever I see it. I even read a blog post last week, written by a professional copywriter, talking about how Google was dumbing down the English language by not correcting the misuse of apostrophes in searches (such as ‘mens clothing’ – when it does correct ‘womens clothing’) and in this blog they referred to Google as plural. They wrote: “Do Google not know”…

        *sigh*

        Originally Posted by WordsofWorth View Post

        There is a difference between 'common' and 'correct'. A lot of things are common in the English language, that doesn’t make them right.
        One of my biggest gripes from writers is overuse of the word... 'that'.

        That this, that that, that something else. In my opinion it's a dreadful use of English.

        Just saying.


        Mark Andrews
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5277422].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NickC
        Originally Posted by WordsofWorth View Post

        There is a difference between 'common' and 'correct'. A lot of things are common in the English language, that doesn't make them right.
        OK - well if you're saying the notional agreement of collective nouns is incorrect, then please cite your source (other than your two managers).

        I've searched The Google and can find nothing.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5280183].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author NickC
          Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

          Buy a good dictionary.
          I have a good dictionary. It doesn't say anything about it being incorrect.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5280263].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Azarna
            It depends on whether one is thinking of the company as a single entity 'Google has announced...' or as a pseudo-abbreviation for 'the people who work at' or 'the management of'... '(the people from) Google have announced...'

            Either usage is now deemed correct in UK English.

            It is incorrect, however, to switch from one such assumption to the other in mid-sentence.

            So if you said 'Google has announced' the next word would be 'its'... Google has announced its new policy. Google remains singular throughout.

            If you said 'Google have announced' then the next word would have to be 'their' as you are treating Google as being a plural word... Google have announced their new policy.

            Considering an apparently singular word to be plural is common practice for sports' teams, btw. We don't say 'Manchester United has just won its third championship', we would usually be thinking of Manchester United as meaning 'the group of men who play under the name of...'. Americans do the same for their sports teams too.

            'The Red Sox have won their third championship.' sounds right, doesn't it?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5280448].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Azarna
              Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

              Besides, no one cares about alternative British usage.
              What is that supposed to mean?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5291506].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author WordsofWorth
            Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

            Get a better one. Try the OED.
            Brilliant!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5322250].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Copy Warriors
    Are you sure they're not saying "executives at Google have (x)?"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5277445].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Pusateri
    The "correct" usage for copywriting purposes is the one your audience expects. If they use "have" and you throw "has" at them, you has wasted the limited resource of their attention. If proper grammar hobbles the flow, ditch it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5277489].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The Copy Warriors
      Originally Posted by Pusateri View Post

      The "correct" usage for copywriting purposes is the one your audience expects. If they use "have" and you throw "has" at them, you has wasted the limited resource of their attention. If proper grammar hobbles the flow, ditch it.
      This is also a good point. Copywriting isn't academic writing, journalistic writing, or even school paper writing. It is sales writing, which first and foremost has to "talk" to the ideal customer in "their language."
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5277536].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Will Edwards
    Interesting discussion. I'm a Brit but prefer the singular. Still, it doesn't upset me too much either way. Language is a dynamic entity, so words and idiom come and go with fashion.

    Will

    P.S. A while back, I began referring to Google as female e.g. "she will send you all the traffic you need" etc - watch it catch on
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5278933].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RefundHost
    I seen other ghetto grammar mistakes made lots to.

    Qualification for ALL teachers really ought to be more strict
    when it comes to grammar and other language skills which
    are transferred to students...even in industrial arts class.
    Signature
    A Great Xmas ClickBank Product - Highest Commission Rate & Low Refund Rate - Email it or use a Banner christmastrivia.ca
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5281519].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheBigShow
    The "then instead of than" error drives me nuts. Also, there are young people that actually think " Drive Thru" is correct LOL
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5281725].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bikramksingh
    people commit such mistake (of using have instead of has when writing about a company) because in their mind company is not an entity, which it is, but a collection of people working there.

    it is hard for a human to digest that like him or her company is also it (an entity) not a collection of men and women.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5282024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ashley Redcliff
    I too prefer the singular. A company is a single entity no matter how many people are a part of it.

    Still, it's a good point that it may be worth sticking to what readers are used to.
    Signature
    High Quality Articles In LESS THAN 24 HOURS - 50% OFF!

    ^^ Unique articles, reviews and rewrites | Native English | Copyscape pass
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5291966].message }}

Trending Topics