Replies

You all got me interested. Here's a screenwriter with some interesting thoughts. (I know, he's just a "screenwriter"...) The last few paragraphs make some good points ("don't be an a**hole about it") and are funny. http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/data-is-singular I make my living writing dialogue — which, like real speech, is largely ungrammatical. Characters say “gimme” and “gotta” and “woulda.” They speak in fragments. Like this. So I tend to be forgiving when a writer bends the rules, or uses words differently than I would prefer. Split infinitives? Fine by me. Dangling participles? No objection here. In fact, the only choice that drives me insane is when writers cling to false rules. To me, the shibboleth is the word “data.” This, from the Los Angeles Times: Another 32 million have some information on file, but the data are too sketchy to create a traditional credit score, he said. Most reasonable people would say “data is” rather than “data are.” Not only does it sound better, but it makes more sense. In this case, “data” refers to “some information” — it’s not clear what the individual bits of information would even be. Why would publications insist on such arbitrary and wrong-sounding usages? Blame Latin. “Data” was originally the plural form of “datum,” which means “something given.” English speakers who use data as a plural noun, in constructions such as “these data” or “data are,” do so with conviction: they know intellectually that data is supposed to be plural, so they use it that way. Yes, let’s. Following this logic, which I’ll call the Plurican Mandate – If the word is plural in its source language, then it must be plural in English. – the following sentences are correct: (agendum, agenda) * Let’s move on to the next agendum. * The meeting’s agenda are long. (graffito, graffiti) * The boy was apprehended while spray-painting a graffito on the wall. * Bathroom graffiti are particularly vulgar. (forum, fora) * This is the appropriate forum for this discussion. * Due to a server problem, the fora are temporarily closed. Obviously, I feel pretty strongly that blindly following the rules of the source language is ridiculous, or else I wouldn’t have written this interminable essay. But I’m not going to chastise individual writers for choosing the opposite tack. Different things sound right to different people. As long as no one is an a**hole about it, Pluricans and Singlecrats can still get along. All I would ask of the Pluricans is to get off their high horse. Saying “data are” is like an American putting a “u” in “color,” “honor,” or “valor.” No, it’s not technically wrong, but it’s showy, deliberate and vain. It’s like over-pronouncing Italian at the Olive Garden. No one is impressed, and frankly, we’re just a little embarrassed for you. Apparently, I’m not the only person who thinks so. You can find other blog entries on the issue here and here. Credit for the terms Pluricans and Singlecrats goes to Kieran Healy.

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/data-is-singular

Okay - here was the most interesting part of my word jumble in the previous post. Go to the guy’s site if you want more:

Why would publications insist on such arbitrary and wrong-sounding usages? Blame Latin.

“Data” was originally the plural form of “datum,” which means “something given.” English speakers who use data as a plural noun, in constructions such as “these data” or “data are,” do so with conviction: they know intellectually that data is supposed to be plural, so they use it that way.

Yes, let’s. Following this logic, which I’ll call the Plurican Mandate – If the word is plural in its source language, then it must be plural in English. – the following sentences are correct:

(agendum, agenda)
* Let’s move on to the next agendum.
* The meeting’s agenda are long.

(graffito, graffiti)
* The boy was apprehended while spray-painting a graffito on the wall.
* Bathroom graffiti are particularly vulgar.

(forum, fora)
* This is the appropriate forum for this discussion.
* Due to a server problem, the fora are temporarily closed.

Obviously, I feel pretty strongly that blindly following the rules of the source language is ridiculous, or else I wouldn’t have written this interminable essay. But I’m not going to chastise individual writers for choosing the opposite tack. Different things sound right to different people. As long as no one is an a**hole about it, Pluricans and Singlecrats can still get along.....

End of quotes.

No, it’s not technically wrong, but it’s showy, deliberate and vain.

And THAT is judgmental, presumptuous and frequently incorrect.

Some people, myself included, simply TRY to use the language correctly. ...regardless of what others may or may not think.

The author seems to come from the Webster's, "might makes right" approach to the language. "There is no right and wrong, it's whatever people are saying."

Pffft. Sounds like a liberal angle to me.

Saying “data are” is like an American putting a “u” in “color,” “honor,” or “valor.”

I don't think that one's accurate. If we're concerned with the reality of how words are used, let's be consistent. Scientists and economists use the word "data" a whole lot, maybe more than anyone. I have covered them in the press for decades, and they usually say "The data are . . ." This isn't all that surprising, since the activity in their specialties goes on mostly in universities, where distinctions that might seem arcane to outsiders are in the air they breathe.

Meanwhile, techies are more private-sector oriented, and also are known for an extreme form of, shall we say, "expediency" in their language-use practices—including basic spelling and capitalization.

I think these two groups both represent genuinely significant pockets of usage.