ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

And what n/a says would make my point clearer probably, though it's not style everywhere -- the sentence with the comma and the sentence without mean slightly different things (the sentence with it being what i take to be an unlikely meaning).

"data"wd take "is"

I think this might be a transatlantic thing? Our style guides treat "data" as plural.

yeah, I'm going with "raw data that are obtained from..."

yeah i was confused by what mark was saying there, data is plural and analysis is singular

yes, sorry, i meant "analysis" would take "is", data takes "are"!

(tho i got muddled for the reason you guessed, because i do tend to be a bit brutal about fossil classical plurals, when i'm in charge of the stylesheet: data is plural in latin not in english etc)

(ie i'd say "this data is shit" not "these data are shit", but i;d expect a fight from all the writers who think their english is better than mine)

this datum is the king turd.

i agree with mookieproof, but the style at my old job was such that if you just took out the comma, you would also have to change "which" to "that."

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:05 PM (24 minutes ago)

yeah it should be "that"

yeah, I'm going with "raw data that are obtained from..."

― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:16 PM (15 minutes ago)

otm

^concur

(tho you could indeed drop "that are" and lose nothing)

"these data are shit" sounds kind of like "these herd are grazing"

Is "civils works" correct in UK (or any other) English? I wanted to change it to "civil works" but the phrase turns up often enough on google for me to doubt myself. (Until five minutes ago, I had no idea "civils" was a word at all - hence my confusion.)

i'd go with civil works tbh, never heard of the other

apart from names of firms - where it anyway appears to be a contraction of civil works -- and some kind of in-industry shorthand which follows this firm-naming usage to much the same effect, i can't find anywhere where something subtly or significantly different is intended

i think the "civils works" you're mainly discovering are typos! certainly there's nothing wrong with "civil works", so i too would stick with it

we've had 'attorneys general' this week in the news, very pleasing imo

http://www.theonion.com/articles/william-safire-orders-two-whoppers-junior,3351/

(to darraghmac & mark s): yep, changed it to "civil works" - I was just unsure because it was for an industry mag & I've been caught out before when applying common sense and a dictionary to piles of steaming jargon, WHICH YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO.

Treating "data" as a plural is fucking dumb. Would you say "How many data" or "How MUCH data"? If the latter sounds right, data is singular.

Also, no one ever talks about an individual "datum" -- "data" really only even makes sense as a collective.

Not sure it's so straightforward in technical or scientific contexts (which is where Morbs works): philosophy certainly uses the term "sense datum", to distinguish a notional individual sensory "item" from the apperceived sensory mass. In ordinary speech and usage, you're right IMO (though I am British and thus brutish about the way English should treat loan-words and their plurals)

happy enough to abuse data but i'm an antichrist for referenda and stadia

Fair. Even I tend to get pedantic about "criterion." But the only way "data" is ever used in the *media* (ha) is as a collective. "The data suggests a link between hot dogs and cancer." It's not only unheard of, but nonsensical to talk about one "datum" versus another "datum" in that context.

referenda only exists by false back-formation, it's bad latin: referendum is a gerund in latin, so has no plural -- since we need a plural for a word which is no longer a gerund, referendums is pedantically correct (because we form plurals in English by adding an s).

course we also sometimes form plurals in english by adding nothing, like sheep, so maybe you could be super-annoying by arguing that the plural is also referendum

I see data with a plural verb pretty often.

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22the+data+suggest%22&num=50&hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&scoring=d

Seem to remember when I looked it up before Fowler said it was much more the common practice in the US than the UK: will check again when I got off this stupid train and back among my lovely books

Quick search of nytimes.com found 13 examples of "the data suggests" and 17 examples of "the data suggest" in the last 12 months. So either they don't have a style preference or their copy editors are asleep at the wheel.

Hurting, you got a point, but read enough medical lit where it's used as a plural and "data is" will look weird.

if you take referenda from me, you leave me with nothing

I had to deal with writing weather reports for 11 years that talked about "heat indices" to now writing business reports that talk about "consumer indexes continuing to drop."

IT'S ONE -- OR THE OTHER!

referendices

¿Cómo se indice?

indicenous industry

In my early days, I got into trouble for (deliberately) allowing a singular "bacteria" in a newspaper headline - something like "*recent scandalous activity* is a bacteria in our politics". I got called up on it, and was all, "You think I didn't notice it? I just thought 'bacterium' would look awful fussy." But I got that kind of youthful nonsense beaten out of me.

modern dickens imo

Is "referendum" a gerund or is it a gerundive of obligation, which as far as my rusty Latin can remember does have a plural? Maybe it shouldn't in Latin but the singulars of e.g. "agenda" and "propaganda" are so rarely seen in English that I feel like they must have been imported as plurals, not that I can back that up.

Wd be tempted to solve "is a bacteria" by taking out the article! Sometimes I think abt how English says "that's me" or "that's the people I was telling you about" (verb agrees with "that" and not what comes after - subject but not complement?) and German says "das bin ich" or "das sind die Leute" (verb agrees with complement, not "das") and wonder which languages do which and if there are any other options

(languages are crazy, there probably are)

wow @ you savages condoning singluar data use

Bacteria, like data, are thought of en masse in the public imagination, rather than as large accumulations of individually recognizable bits. A good analogy would be rice. This fact, coupled with the fact that native English speakers don't recognize Latin plural forms and don't care about them, is what lies behind the tug of war between ordinary yobs and language snobs over "datum" and "bacterium". The snobs will certainly lose this one.

To the common ear, "a single bacteria" will do nicely to call out one organism while still sounding like English. Likewise, "a piece of data" would analogize well to "a grain of rice".

To the common ear, "a single bacteria" will do nicely to call out one organism

I'm no scientist, but ugh, no!

The unwashed do not care for your squeamishness on this point. It is destiny!

'that's the people i was telling you about'

!

non silvatici sed barbari

you got me there i'm a business grad

OK, oops, I got the US/UK tendency the wrong way round per Fowler (writing in 1926 or 1965, not sure the date of this entry): "Latin plurals sometimes become singular English words (e.g. agenda, stamina) and data is often so treated in the US; in Britain this is still considered a solecism, though it may occasionally appear."

I am still inclined to think that this judgment has now switched round: that upper-end US style sheets would be more tenaciously classicist and/or respectful of loan-words, Brit ones more laissez faire and/or johnbullish.

My stamina for this discussion are depleted. Time for supper.

I am still inclined to think that this judgment has now switched round: that upper-end US style sheets would be more tenaciously classicist and/or respectful of loan-words, Brit ones more laissez faire and/or johnbullish.

yeah this is definitely my experience in science

i was a singular data dude all my life until i started publishing in journals. still feel such a prig using plural.

Surely nobody says that's the people I was telling you about? As for that's me, I remember discussing this a lot in Italy. Where we would say "Hello, it's me" when arriving home (and calling out to someone known but unseen), they would say "Sono io" which is like "I am me" (or more literally "I am I"), which seems weird.

People do say "That's the people I was telling you about"! And when they don't, they might say - much more often in fact - "There's the people". You wouldn't usually write that, formally. But nobody says the correct versions: "There're the people", "Those're the people". The former is impossible to say, the latter indistinguishable in most accents from "There are".

"Thoser" sounds different enough from "therer", or at least no more similar than a bunch of other words that we manage to tell apart?