Is/Are the most expensive car/s they have

[GoesStation]

Possibly, but it's hard to imagine because it sounds like completely the wrong word.

I found an article about the tendency. Here's an excerpt:

"American usage prefers to reserve pressurize for technical contexts and save pressure for psychological contexts. Speakers and writers of British English don’t seem to be aware of any such distinction …."

 

[jutfrank]

Interesting, but the article writer has missed the mark by some way.

My first reaction (as a Brit) to the sentence in the OP was amusement. The distinction has always been very clear to me. It may be a generational thing.

 

[Ashraful Haque]

I was talking with some friends about coronavirues. I said it's not easy to keep yourself from touching your face and then I said the following:
"We've been touching our face/faces since the day we were born."

I think both are correct here. Just want a native's opinion.
Thanks in advance.

 

[SoothingDave]

I would say "faces" there. It's a plural subject, but it's not one face we all touch. We each have a face. So "our faces."

 

[GoesStation]

Only "faces" works for me. I can't say why, though, given that we'd probably say "We're all watching our step".

 

[Ashraful Haque]

Only "faces" works for me. I can't say why, though, given that we'd probably say "We're all watching our step".

That's pretty confusing. Why step and not steps if faces and not face?

 

[GoesStation]

That's pretty confusing. Why step and not steps if faces and not face?

As I said, I can't explain it.

 

[jutfrank]

Why step and not steps if faces and not face?

The semi-fixed expression is: watch (one's) step. It would sound odd to pluralise the word step because that part of the expression is fixed.

 

[GoesStation]

Why "step" and not "steps" if "faces" and not "face"?

Always mark text you're writing about with italics or quotation marks. Please demonstrate that you're learning this by getting it right next time.