for language purists only PLEASE...

mornin' researchers,

since, there are 3,570,000 hits on "data is" and "2,470,000 for "data
are," would you please argue your best defense for using each and then
find the most authoritative source for the correct (probably old
school) usage.  thanks a bunch!

ever in need of an answer,
granny

p.s.  this is what I've found so far:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2527

Hi Granny, long time no see!  (You should discount the previous
statement because I'm a bit nearsighted.)

My first thought was that this is one of those descriptive /
prescriptive arguments.  "Data is" describes how a majority of people
-- at least according to Google -- write "data" with a form of the
verb "to be".  "Data are" is what grammarians prescribe, since "data"
is the plural of "datum".

However, the evidence is muddled. (Ain't that always the truth.)

For the past tense, the Google score is: "data was", 1,030,000; "data
were", 1,160,000.  (Meanwhile, "data has" defeats "data have".)

As to grammarians: "of the 136 distinguished consultants on usage
polled for the 1975 Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, 49%
responded that they use 'The data is...' in writing.  And in casual
speech, 65% use data as singular."

"Data Is/Data Are", by  Dan O'Neill (Alaska Science Forum, August 24,
1979, Article #334)
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF3/334.html

In light of this confusing situation, I think the best argument lies
somewhere in the middle.  Rather than say simply that "data" is plural
and requires a plural verb (the argument for "data are") or that
"data" has effectively become a singular, collective noun, and
therefore should take or does in practice take a singular verb (the
argument for "data" is), we can have it both ways!

"If you are talking about a single set of figures to a lay audience,
data IS may be more appropriate. In a technical paper, reporting
results obtained from extensive analysis, stick with data ARE."

"Let's Communicate" [under "Write the Right Word"] (Electronic
Newsletter, June 1997, No. 18)
North Dakota State University, Agriculture Communication Department
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/letscomm/9706.htm

In other words, the appropriateness of "data is" or "data are" depends
on the thing(s) being described and the persons to whom you are
describing it/them.  On this theme, see:

"'Data Is' vs. 'Data Are'", John Cullen (1999)
SharpWriter.com
http://www.sharpwriter.com/aaacontent/data_is.htm

This split decision is supported by recent usage resources on
Bartleby.com, which I suppose are fairly authoritative:

"3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints:  § 88.
data" (The American Heritage Book of English Usage: A Practical and
Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, 1996)
Bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/088.html

"data, datum (n.)", by Kenneth G. Wilson (The Columbia Guide to
Standard American English, 1993)
Bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/68/19/1619.html
    
But all of the sources I've cited indicate that, if you're talkin' old
school, "data are" is correct.

Ever willing to humor (or is it humour?) Granny,
justaskscott-ga


Search terms used on Google:

"data is" "data are"
"data is" "data are" grammar
grammar

---

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 27 Feb 2003 12:37 PST

It just occurred to me that when you asked for a language purist, you
might not have wanted someone like me.  (I was thinking more along the
lines of language enthusiast.)  I feel that while correct grammar is
very important for communication to a wide audience, incorrect grammar
is fine for many everyday situations.  Still, my view in this case
seems to accord with what the purists say, so I suppose it has all
worked out for the best.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by badabing-ga on 27 Feb 2003 14:08 PST

not to worry, Scottie.  granny needs to argue both positions so I'll
look over what you have here.  I only used "language purists" because
they're fairly rabid about their subject.  plus they work for cheap. 
how's that new house workin' for ya?  thanks for the info, pardner. 
appreciate all the groovy comments, too.

---

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 27 Feb 2003 17:16 PST

Gotta post a clarification to get rid of the "NEEDS CLARIFICATION"
announcement on my account.  But in fact, the one thing I might
clarify I'm not sure about: I think "data" should be classified as a
collective noun, not a mass noun, but I've seen contradictory things
on this topic.  Perhaps that's a subject for another, more technical,
question.

Anyhoo, the house is good; however, we still have some boxes lying
around, waiting to be unpacked (we like to think we're practical,
unpacking the things we really need, rather than lazy).  Thanks for
asking!

boffo info, kids.  I have some guidelines for using both, including
the whys and wherefores, and I'll print these articles out for
reference.  thanks, everyone, for your comments as they're much
appreciated.  I'll check out Philip Howard's book since I lend extra
credence to blokes from across the pond.  economist.com has an online
style guide that I use quite often.  cheerio, gang!

This is a bugbear of mine, so I have to comment.

Strunk and White "The Elements of style" say (something along the
lines of - sorry this is from memory). The word data is a plural, like
phenomena and criteria."

The singular is datum.  

And note that in the sentence above, I wrote "data is" but I wasn't
thinking that it was singular.  So scores on Google might not be
correct.

jeremymiles-ga

Dear Badabing,

I don't think one can properly compare "data" with "phenomena" or
"criteria".  People who use "data" as a singular are using it as a
mass noun (Justaskscott calls it a "singular, collective noun") to
represent a whole (singular) body of data.  There is no plural in this
sense.  People who use "phenomena" or "criteria" as singular nouns are
talking about an individual phenomenon or criterion and are simply
misunderstanding the words.  So I go with Justaskscott and his
sources: it all depends on what you mean by "data".

But anyway, my main point is to mention the article on the word "data"
by Philip Howard (who occasionally writes on words in The (London)
Times) in one of his books (sorry, but I forget which).  The article's
title sums up his view: Data is not what they used to be.

I trust this helps.

Carnegie

I am not an expert.

I've noticed a growing number of people who argue that words of
latin/greek origin are now assimilated into English, and so more
"English" usage is appropriate. So you then get words like appendixes,
octopuses, viruses (virus is already plural), or "data is".

Some of this is understandable in the cases where the context of the
word changes between the languages, but in other cases it is just
stubborn and ignorant. For example, people use the plural "appendixes"
simply because it somehow became acceptable to have righteous
indignation when people correct your third-grade English usage.

That said, I think the case could be made that in English, "data" is a
kind of aggregate singular. Usage takes second place to ease of use.
Would you rather say "this data is bad" or "these data are bad?"

Still, I prefer "are," because I'm an anal retentive SOB.

holy crap, it's Alan Dershowitz!  I love anal retentive SOBs who can
also bend a little.  thanks for the input.

Hear, hear. (Or perhaps har, har would be more fun.)

I have a permanent bee in my bonnet over "data is/data are." I also
have a similar bonnet-bee regarding the use of "media" and "phenomena"
as if they are singular nouns. Then there's "kudos," when used as if
it were a plural (I have even seen the abominable back-formation
"kudo" for the supposed singular form. Auggh.)

I am such a fussy old language maven that all these bees in my bonnet
have given me a bad case of hives, up with which I shall not put. ;-)

~Pink

Since Granny asked for the arguments for both sides, I just wanted to
pop in for the "data is" camp.  I think most formally trained
linguists would say that language change is a powerful and unstoppable
force (which is why Shakespearean English can be hard to understand
and Old English is completely incomprehensible), and that in fact
there's no reason to fight against language change because the entire
concept of proscriptive "grammar" has historically just been a way for
upper classes to distinguish themselves from lower classes.

So to a linguist, a person who says "ain't" as opposed to "isn't" is
the same thing as a person from England saying "lorry" as opposed to a
person from the US saying "truck."  Different people speak English
differently, with no value judgments assumed. In the case of "data,"
you've got an irregular form which is being treated by more and more
people as if it were a regular form.  In general, irregular forms
almost always become regularized over time, unless they are really
frequent words in the language (like English am/is/are).

Anyway, language change is really, really cool, and I highly recommend
asking Google Answers for some easy-to-follow-for-laypeople references
about historical linguistics.

Thanks, granny!

Careful about looking across the pond; the Queen's English and, what,
Dubya's English? (let's say Safire's English, which is more
authoritative) may differ in this respect, as they do in others.  That
may be an obvious point, but I'm only saying what I would tell myself;
Anglophilia must have its limits.

FYI, I am not the Alan Dershowitz that you are probably familiar with.

Dear Badabing,

If you like The Economist's on-line style guide, you may like The
Guardian's too.  It is at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide

It disagrees with The Economist over "data":

  data takes a singular verb; like agenda, strictly a plural,
  but no one ever uses "agendum" or "datum"

Carnegie