Re: [Fwd: motion 7 NaI]

[John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788

On 25 Aug 2009, at 11:42, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-24 17:47:12 +0200, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre schrieb:
> > > On 2009-08-24 09:36:59 +0200, Jürgen Wolff v Gudenberg wrote:
> > > > revised rationale is attached.
> > >
> > > 2 editorial corrections:
> > >  * datums -> data
> >
> > datums is better in the present context.
> > See the following page from the Oxford dictionary (who must know):
> >    http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data
>
> http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data does not
> say that "datums" exists, and it is not in my dictionary.
>
> More importantly, IEEE 754 uses "datum" (sing.) / "data" (pl.). So,
> it is better to follow the same choice.

It's all my fault. I explicitly decided to use "datums" as plural of  
"datum" on the grounds that "data" is so often considered a singular,  
collective, noun these days. I think I say so somewhere in the  
rationale for motion 2 or motion 6.

754 never uses "datums". It uses "datum" often. It uses "data" both  
as the normal plural of "datum" (e.g. 1st para of 3.1.1) and -- in my  
view -- as the singular collective (e.g. line 3 of 1.1, where "datums  
interchange" is not idiomatic English even if one accepts "datums" as  
a valid plural).

Please may we continue to use "datums"? I think it will reduce  
confusion.

John Pryce