Re: datums (grrrr)
We can argue ad infinitum about deterioration of the English language,
which I have been speaking for over 50 years. I see numerous problems
in common usage, such as matching the verb (plural or singular) with
the word closest to the verb, rather than with the actual subject
of the sentence (for example, "A number of researchers ARE upset
about this," rather than the formally correct "A number of researchers
IS upset about this"). However, this, and other constructs, are now
the rule, rather than the exception, in popular media, both in
American and British English. At some point, I think we have to
accept that the language changes. When I referee or edit a paper
now, I take a slightly different philosophy than I did a while
ago: I try to judge whether or not the sentence is widely recognized
as incorrect by native speakers and whether or not it is unambiguous
and easy to understand the meaning; I also look for consistency, but
not to the point that the language is unnecessarily boring.
An argument for being formal and conservative is that we apply
pressure against change, so people 500 years from now might still
be able to understand it. An argument against it is that we are
wasting energy swimming against a strong tide, and we may end up
with language that seems unusual.
I suggest that we turn our attention to core issues of P1788, and
not waste undue time on language minutiae. Realize that both
a strength and weakness of English is that it is so flexible.
Sincerely,
Baker
Michel Hack wrote:
John Pryce wrote:
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).
The use of plural qualifying nouns is another one of those modern
perversions; it should be "datum interchange", "datum processing",
"system programming" etc.
On the other hand, we would have "interchange of data" as in that
case "data" is an object and not a modifier.
Interestingly, the one case where "datums" may be acceptable is
when used with a cardinal number -- maybe. "Two data" does sound
funny; I would prefer "two datum points", though that suffers from
repetition if "datum" already implies "point".
Michel. (Please excuse my off-topic rantlet)
---Sent: 2009-08-25 14:44:54 UTC
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------