I Know That Data Is Here Somewhere…

EPA blog/ Greenvesation(not envirosation) ^ | Friday, July 31st, 2009 | Ethan McMahon

[21twelve]

I was taught that data is singular when talking about a specific type of data, such as “the elevation data is ....” but “elevation, temperature and soil data are....”.

It seems to make sense, but never sounded right to me. But, in this case, ALL types of data are missing - so the “are” would seem to be correct.

But, I wonder if it is the same as money vs. “monies”. Where “monies”, from what I was told, refers to money from various sorts of sources. Such as “the monies for the research come from private, government and industry sources”.

What I would like to know is, where are the monies coming from that will be used so the EPA can measure the changes in CO2 data as they try to get it from 0.038% down to 0.025% (or whatever!).

G’day Mate! (Probably some bastardization of God Bless!? ;)

[Lancey Howard]

lol, man, you are really getting beat up here!

[21twelve]

“..grabbed the Jeff Foxworthy database”

LOL!

[TChris]

“Data” is the plural of “datum”.

[freedumb2003]

>>lol, man, you are really getting beat up here!<<

Actually, I am getting bear up... :)

[freedumb2003]

I’ll take you up on it! :)

[JohnQ1]

Delacon is correct: “...data is now being used as both in the plural and singular context” — ERRONEOUSLY! MY GODMOTHER TAUGHT LATIN! (But I loved her anyway.)

[Delacon]

“G’day Mate! (Probably some bastardization of God Bless”!? ;)

Well everything Aussies say is a bastardization of English. This we know. But G’day Mate is a a bastardization of “Have a good day my koala humping friend”. I tried to look it up in the Aussie English Dictionary but I couldnt find one.

[dr_lew]

Webster's has always bent freely to usage. My own losing battle is for the original meaning of ad hominem, which is almost universally understood today as implying a personal attack. This is meaning 2 in Webster's Ninth Collegiate, but not listed in Webster's Seventh Collegiate. The first ( and only in the Seventh ) meaning is given as, "appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect". You see it's "TO the man" not "AGAINST the man". I've always thought that the usual understanding is based on a vulgar misapprehension of the latin.

But even the definition in the Seventh is a liberalization of the original which just means an argument tailored to a particular audience. Galileo and Clausewitz use it in this sense. Here's Clausewitz:

We see then that there are many ways to one's object in War; that the complete subjugation of the enemy is not essential in every case; that the destruction of the enemy's military force, the conquest of the enemy's provinces, the mere occupation of them, the mere invasion of them--enterprises which are aimed directly at political objects--lastly, a passive expectation of the enemy's blow, are all means which, each in itself, may be used to force the enemy's will according as the peculiar circumstances of the case lead us to expect more from the one or the other. We could still add to these a whole category of shorter methods of gaining the end, which might be called arguments ad hominem.

[Delacon]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesnt ad hominem generally mean “towards a personal attack”? And I am not above them but only when it comes to shits and giggles(fun for fun’s sake).

[21twelve]

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.

[RobRoy]

Interesting. I’ve been in IT since 1983. I’ve even been an IMS DBA during part of that time.

Although it is common knowledge that the word Datum refers to a single piece of data, nobody ever called it that. We called it a data element, a field, or some other name. The word datum was only used acedemically, never in real world examples.

Also, I have also never, EVER heard anyone say the data “are” here. It has always been the data “is” here. The word data is sort of used like the word “flock” or “herd”. Its common use is as a singular.

And I am still in IT.

[dr_lew]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesnt ad hominem generally mean “towards a personal attack”?

No, the "to" or "towards" has nothing to do with an attack. The latin itself just means "to the man", in the sense that the argument is addressed to a particular "man" or audience.

A theory I have is that the common meaning arose as an example of this more general meaning in the context of a public debate. One might attack one's opponent by way of appealing to the emotions of the audience. "You're not going to listen to this idiot, are you?" is addressed TO the audience, not the opponent being attacked.

[Delacon]

If you goose one woman it means to grab a woman by her butt in a suggestive way. If you grab the butts of several women, is it gramatically correct to say you geesed the women?

[Tainan]

"Well...if you wanta datum you go right ahead...but I'm tellin ya, them Johnson Twins are a handfull!"

[Delacon]

I disagree you lame assed latin loving sob. :)

[Bhoy]

LOL. To all: this discussion illustrates why i come back. Fun. Thanks to all.

[21twelve]

Oh man - sorry about the crummy formating. (Ducking for cover).

[21twelve]

I guess!?

[21twelve]

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.