Can a collective noun denoting a collection of inanimate objects be treated as plural in British English?

Question

This grammar page on ‘Matching verbs to collective nouns’ provided by Oxford Dictionaries says:

Collective nouns are nouns which stand for a group or collection of people or things. They include words such as audience, committee, police, crew, family, government, group, and team.

In American English, most collective nouns are treated as singular, with a singular verb:

• √ The whole family was at the table.

• √ The government is doing a good job.

• √ He prefers an audience that arrives without expectations.

In British English, most collective nouns can be treated as singular or plural:

• The whole family was at the table.[singular collective noun; singular verb]

• The whole family were at the table.[plural collective noun; plural verb]

• The government is doing a good job.[singular collective noun; singular verb]

• The government are doing a good job.[plural collective noun; plural verb]

There are a few collective nouns (in both British and American English) that are always used with a plural verb, the most common of which are police and people:

• √ She's happy with the way the police have handled the case.

• X She's happy with the way the police has handled the case.

• √ It's been my experience that people are generally forgiving.

• X It's been my experience that people is generally forgiving.

Although Oxford says collective nouns stand for a group or collection of things as well as people, every example word provided by Oxford stands for a group or collection of people only (audience, committee, police, crew, family, government, group, and team), possibly except for group, because there can be a group of things as well as a group of people.

In general, "things" can include animals as well as inanimate objects. But I don't think that the Oxford grammar editors intended to exclude inanimate objects from the "things". So, I'd like to interpret the "things" as inanimate objects.

Can you treat the collective noun 'group' denoting a collection of inanimate objects as plural in British English as follows?

A group are located on the mountain's south ridge. [Assuming that 'a group' here refers to a group of houses.]

Also, are there other collective nouns that denote a collection of inanimate objects that can be treated as plural in British English as shown by Oxford?

Answer 1

The first word that comes to mind is "stuff" (because you specified "inanimate objects"). Although "stuff" is a collection of inanimate objects, the correct way to match verbs to it is by treating it as singular. Example: "Her stuff was strewn all over the room."

Another noun that reinforces and confirms this rule is "luggage". Example: "Our bright red luggage was easy to spot in the carousel."

Answer 2

Grammar Monster collective nouns gives this list; also consider group, which can apply to a collection of just about anything (stamps, precious stones).

A bouquet of flowers

A bunch of flowers

A fleet of ships

A forest of trees

A galaxy of stars

A pack of cards

A pack of lies

A pair of shoes

A range of mountains

A wad of notes

The OP asks, "Can any of the collective nouns in your answer be treated as plural when used alone?

A quick Google Ngram search reveals that only "pair" is sometimes used with a plural verb.

Here is the Google NGram for "pair are". books.google.com/ngrams/… Some of the references are to shoes or socks; many are to anatomical structures. Others are to mathematics. Many are false positives--e.g., "the two lines of its pair are connected" (pair is not the noun governing are". You might find this Q&A interesting also : english.stackexchange.com/questions/7186/… –