Slashdot Mirror
It's Time to End the 'Data Is' vs 'Data Are' Debate (vice.com)
dmoberhaus writes: After receiving too many irate emails about using "data" in the singular, a reporter spoke to two lexicographers about how the language changes over time and why it's perfectly acceptable and perhaps even "standard" to use data as a singular noun, rather than a plural noun in an attempt to settle an old debate. Peter Sokolowski, a lexicographer for the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, told the reporter that data's transition between its historical roots and contemporary use is related to a lexical phenomenon called "semantic bleaching," where a word's original meaning is lost or diminished over time. An example of semantic bleaching include the contemporary use of the word "literally," whose Latin root, littera, means "letter." In the case of "data," it has transitioned from "things given" to mean something like "a collection of information in aggregate" when used in everyday speech.
"Data are an Android." No sir, I don't like it.
No it aren't.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
kinda like "deer" is both the singular of "deer", and also the plural of "deer".
Plural in Latin, singular mass noun in English, does it need to be any more complicated? Strictly speaking, if you mean to write the latin word in English prose then you should italicize it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Are we sure it is?
We're pretty sure, but we need to wait until more data is available before we officially close the debate.
We're pretty sure, but we need to wait until more data are available before we officially close the debate.
Well, that settles it: The second form just feels weird and stilted, like a grammar rule from a musty out-of-date dictionary. Debate closed.
The problem is that the word is more commonly used now as a synonym for "information". You would never say "informations". At this point, it is mostly treated as plural in scientific contexts, and even there, it has often been superseded by the compound word "data point", which is obviously and trivially pluralizable.
BTW, Oxford weighed in a while back.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Thank you for your participation. ;-)
I agree. However, the reason you would never say that is because "stuff" is uncountable. Using the article "a" is nonsensical, because that implies that there can be exactly one of something, and thus it must be countable. Just as you can't have exactly one, you can't have more than one, hence it is neither singular nor plural, per se. If "data" can't be used in that way for the same reason, then it, too, is an uncountable mass noun.
Except uncountable nouns in English always take a singular verb, e.g. "This stuff is gross," not "This stuff are gross". "The flour is in the cupboard," not "The flour are in the cupboard," and so on.
The only way "data" can be plural is if you treat it as the plural of datum, which only makes sense if you are talking about a specific, countable set of data points. The result of an experiment produces data that is a collection of datum, hence ostensibly countable, so using it in the plural form is acceptable. When we start talking about the flow of data across a network, that's not really countable in any meaningful sense, because it varies from moment to moment, so it is uncountable, and must take a singular verb.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
This is why Dr. Pulaski lasted only one season, she was an inhuman monster.
As in " One million dollars was spent . . ." instead of "were spent".
We're pretty sure but we need to wait until we have more data before we officially close the debate.
When in doubt change the sentence so that you get around the tricky bit.
Spoken like a true and proper douche who has never left their own town. Is it really any wonder why there's a strong anti-europe sentiment in the US when there's people as condescending as yourself?
Wow. You really are an idiot.
I'm Canadian, moron. Also, the only douches here are the ones posting AC LOL...
Realistically, I can take any socialized health care system and point out to a way that it's inferior to the US system.
No, you can't, because they aren't. The US has the worst health care in the developed world; Mexico and Cuba are better.
The thing people as naive as yourself don't realize is every system has its positives and every system has its negatives.
Nope. The thing USians don't realize - because they've deliberately lobotomized their educational system, and therefore have a hopelessly parochial and myopic view of the world - is that health care is better just about ANYWHERE in the world that isn't a third-world banana republic, and even some of THOSE have better health care!
Honestly, I don't know what else to expect from a degenerate culture that uses their own children for target practice though...