Glen, I have this problem too, but before your post had not thought about how localized a problem it is. Having thought about this for a few days, I have a hypothesis you might find more satisfying: The reason you often use 'data' as a singular noun is because you are often referring to (or thinking about) something singular when you talk about 'data.'
For example, when I ask someone to 'send me their data', what I am really asking them to do is to send me 'a file' that contains their many datums. Asking for 'the data' is a short hand for asking for 'the file containing the data.' As such, I might not flinch if the email reply contains the text 'Here is the data' - they are using the same shorthand, and mean 'Here is a file containing the data.' Or we can imagine an assistant making a physical data hand off: "Here it is." ~"Here what is?" "The data." ~"Ah, you mean, 'Here THEY ARE.' " <confused look> "Was there supposed to be more than one?" ~"Well, data is plural, I would hope there is more than one." <worried look> "Well, I'm sorry, but they only gave me one folder when I went to pick it up." ~"Of course, there was only one folder I wanted." <getting concerned the professor might be crazy> "And... here it is?" ~"You mean, 'Here they are.' " "If you say so... have a nice day." Plausible? Eric P.S. I thought of this when it occurred to me that the 'data' problem might relate to the 'faculty' problem. There is some long-running fuss about whether it is acceptable to say that "The college faculty are displeased," or if one must write out "The members of the faculty of the college are displeased," or if one can treat 'the faculty' as a singluar entity and say "The college faculty is displeased." On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 08:36 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" <g...@tempusdictum.com> wrote: > Greg Sonnenfeld wrote circa 11-08-19 10:33 AM: >> Data is now accepted as a mass noun by most computing organizations >> including those in IEEE. I remember having a long debate about this at >> Ames in regards to a publication. > >Well, that might be an indirect cause for my bad behavior, I suppose. I >could say that "So many of my colleagues do it that it's only natural >that I would do it sporadically as well, even if I'm trying not to do >it." I find this is the case, for me, with both cussing and my >(mostly >dormant) Texas accent. When I'm around cussers, I tend to start >cussing, too. When I go home to Texas, I tend to start talkin' like 'em. > >And I _know_ this has had an impact on my lack of fluency with SI units. > It's taken me quite some time to _think_ in Celsius. And I'm way >behind on changing from miles to kilometers and pounds to kilograms. I >think I'd have to leave the country and immerse myself in SI to make any >real progress. > >But I can't accept the "everyone else does it" defense of my bad >behavior. I'd have to give up huge chunks of my personality in order to >do that. So, I need another reason. Why can't I get a handle on this >problem like I can with: > > o 24 hour clock, > o "What in Hell" as opposed to "What the Hell", and > o "Where are you at" as opposed to "Where are you", etc. > >What makes "data" trickier than those others? > > >Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 11-08-19 01:27 PM: >> So who is it NOT absurd to? Highschool English >> teachers? Statistics teachers who are channeling THEIR highschool English >> teachers? > >It's not absurd to me. I actually think the way one uses language has a >deep impact on the audience/receiver. I'm not saying I have any >significant language skills; but any lack of those skills is no excuse >for not trying to design my language for the audience. Some audience >members may be persnickety people. And if they're anything like me, a >bad or odd "sounding" phrasing can prevent them from hearing whatever >message I'm trying to send. Granted, it's pretty petty if, say, a >peer-reviewer rejects a paper just because the language is bad. But >it's a real consideration. I can't tell you how many cool concepts I've >_finally_ understood after re-re-re-reading some technical paper written >by a non-native English speaker. It's just plain difficult to >concentrate on the message when every other sentence seems funny or off. > >> I think the reason that it is still a problem relates to its having no >> plural. Flock refers to a bunch of sheep, but you can also have flocks. >> Data refers to a bunch of numbers, but we can't speak of different bunches >> of numbers as "datas". > >That sounds like it's on the right track. But, again, it's indirect. >I'd be more inclined to think that it's the vagueness of the concept >that gets in the way. The meaning of "flock" (or herd or >whatever) is >ambiguous, at least to me. It's an artifact of the measurement >protocol. Data is used in this vague way, too. By contrast, >"dataset" >presents no such problems. There seems to be a crispness to "dataset" >that I don't get with "data". It's more concrete, has harder >boundaries, or something like that. > >But it is definitely related to whether or not you can pluralize it. >The meaning of "data" is vague enough that if you had 2 datas, >everyone >around you would refer to that collection of collections as "the >data". > Flocks are only less vague because everyone we're likely to talk to is >a human with eyeballs. It's our eyeballs that define the flock and >allow us to say "flocks". > >-- >glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
