Conference thebay::joyoflex

    A hot button.
    
    For me, "data" takes the plural; "datum" is the singlr form.
    
    If they want the singular, let 'em replace "data" with "information."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    G'day,
    
    This _is_ a DP hot chestnut!
    
    I regard 'data' in the context that is usally used within the world
    of computing to be a collective noun - since there is a wide range
    of information that may be data to some program or other. Ergo,
    data is singular.
    
    Computers digest data, humans (generally) information. 
    Therefore, 'data' is input using ..... data is processed following
    input...
    
    
    This way is not cumbersome, not pompous and is sufficiently abstract
    that the concept can be managed easily.
    
    Derek
    
    
    

You're mixing languages.  Latin has data/datum.  English has a word that
is spelled (what?! not spelt? that's WRONG!) the same as the Latin
"data" and has a similar meaning, but it is both singular and plural. 
The constructions "data are" or "the datum is" is reserved for hopeless
pedants who are the sort that tell you the correct past tense for the
verb "to snow" is "snew" and who correct your pronounciation of
"croissant."  Screw 'em...join the human race and accept "data is."

					>>>==>PStJTT 

    Re .3 (PStJTT):
    
>You're mixing languages.  Latin has data/datum.  English has a word that
>is spelled (what?! not spelt? that's WRONG!) the same as the Latin
>"data" and has a similar meaning, but it is both singular and plural. 
 
    Funny, even my _Webster's Seventh_ has "datum" as an English word
    (well, American English).  The reference line used in aircraft weight
    and balance calculations, FWIW, is also "the datum."
    
> .......... Screw 'em...join the human race and accept "data is."
              
    Oh, yes.  And while we're at it, let's accept "functionality,"
    "verbize," "verify/accomplish," "preventative," and "like, y'know."
    
    All power to the people!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
           

    My vote is for 'data is'. Like .2 said, it's understandable and doesn't
    seem pedantic. 
    
    Anyway, in the context of the computing world, data is like water -
    we're surrounded by it, and it doesn't really make sense to think of it
    either as plural or singular. Since we have to say either 'is' or
    'are', let's use 'is' on the grounds that it sounds better. 
    
    I take .4's point about abusing the language, but there must be a
    middle way between stubborn pedantry and polysyllabic jargonisation... 
    
    Rod

>    Oh, yes.  And while we're at it, let's accept "functionality,"
>    "verbize," "verify/accomplish," "preventative," and "like, y'know."

OK, no problem.  While I can be as pedantic as any when amongst pedants, 
it's important to remember that when you're talking about writing 
documentation, the point is communication, not words for words' sake. 
"Data is" is common use, people who use it that way won't notice, and 
the pedants will have a small thrill of superiority and keep reading. 
Information gets transferred.  "Data are" calls too much attention to 
itself.  People who haven't seen it before are tripped up, people who 
have seen it before are either irritated or suddenly feel the need to 
use "datum" in a sentence so people around them know that *they* know 
"data" is plural.

If you're writing to an audience that uses "functionality" (or any other
of your hit list) and you're planning on using it the way they do, then
have at it.  Likewise, it's all right to use "alright." The message is
more important than the tools you use to get it across. I'll agree that
ugly words should be resisted.  Irregular constructions also should be
resisted.  Datum/data is an irregular construction that doesn't fit 
English very well.  Let's dump it.

As is often pointed out, English is a living language, and finding old 
words amongst the detritus of its history does not mean we have to keep 
using them.  After all, "snew" *is* the past tense of "snow", but we don't 
use that anymore.  
						>>>==>PStJTT

    It's tough using English correctly, isn't it?  However, when I write
    a manual, I try to use English as correctly as humanly possible.
    I don't want my readers to doubt the information presented in the
    book because it was written poorly.  
    
    Spd

    Re .5 (Rod):
    
    >I take .4's point about abusing the language, but there must be a
    >middle way between stubborn pedantry and polysyllabic jargonisation... 
     
    How about "data am"? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	It had never ocurred to me that data might be single until this
    topic. They (it) just seemed to be too be too many (large). I suppose
    a database is as single as a forest if you need a singular and can't
    see the wood for the trees.
    
    	As a mathematician I was used to a datum, and anyway my dictionary
    gives "data : see datum".

     (A rat hole surrounded by a digression cloaked in a non sequitor.)

     The past tense of "snow" is (was?) "snew"?  What was
     the form used with "have"?  E.g., 
     
          "It must have snewn for hours to get that deep!"
     
     Dan
     
     P.S  I am reminded of (gasp!) "shat."

>    It's tough using English correctly, isn't it?  However, when I write
>    a manual, I try to use English as correctly as humanly possible.

So do you use "thee" and "thou"?  They are perfectly correct words with 
a long tradition of use.  When did they become incorrect?  When a 
dictionary listed them as archaic?  You need some book's permission to 
speak your own language??

Data as singular is not something you can prevent.  That time has
slipped by, it's already here and in common use. In a reasonable amount
of time the collection of literary permission slips that makes up a
dictionary will include data singular as colloquial and finally data
plural as archaic.  Will it be OK then? 

If you want to campaign while it will still do some good, you should 
watch that the word isn't made even more regular by back-forming the 
plural into "datas."  I would join in the wailing and gnashing of teeth 
over that one, but if it happened, again it would be moving the language
toward regularity and (to paraphrase)the good of the many outweigh the
good of the few -- or the pedants. 

Like most people who reply to this note, I can argue both sides of this 
question.  We could switch places and I could argue with passion for 
keeping English pure (since you can't hear me laughing at the thought of 
keeping English pure by preserving a Latin construction.) But as a 
realist, I believe that English moves toward simpler forms, and I 
believe that's a good thing (even when it contradicts what I learned as 
a child -- which seems to be what most people are defending.)

					>>>==>PStJTT

From my 1980 copy of "Software Publications Style Guide":

"_Data_ is the plural form of _datum_.  Generally, the preferred style 
is to use _datum_ with a singular verb form and _data_ with a plural
verb form.

   The system transfers a datum each time a pulse occurs.

   The data are transferred along parallel lines.

A common practice in technical writing, however, is to use _data_ with 
a singular verb form, and not to use _datum_ at all.

   The data is transferred along parallel lines.

Because this practice has wide acceptance, you may use this style in 
software manuals.  Whichever style you choose, be sure to follow it 
consistently throughout the manual.  In partucular, avoid using both 
_data_ and _datum_ with singular verb forms in the same manual."

I agree that using datum tends to distract the reader.  However, I
usually try to write around the issue (e.g., "information is
transferred") because I am terrified of marauding pedants.

Hope this helps...

JP

>     The past tense of "snow" is (was?) "snew"?  What was
>     the form used with "have"?  E.g., 
>     
>          "It must have snewn for hours to get that deep!"

Yup.  The analog word for "snow" is "know" so I imagine snewn would have 
been correct.  I got the "snew" tidbit from a professor of languages.  
He loved collecting these little gems.  I was so taken with it, that I
try to find an excuse to use it at least once a year. ("It snew last
night.") I had forgotten this year, and so welcomed this note as a
godsend. 

     
>     P.S  I am reminded of (gasp!) "shat."

Or "shoop" as the singular of "sheep."  I've seen both shat and shoop in 
print, so they may prevail.  There's no way of guessing how the language 
will bob and weave.  That's part of the reason I love living languages.

					>>>==>PStJTT

     If "know" is the proper analog then it would be "have snown"
     instead of "have snewn."
     
     I just looked up "opus" (the current 396.last) and the
     dictionary gives the plural as "opera" or "opuses." 
     The same dictionary lists two words spelled "opera,"
     the second being a plural of "opus."  Weird.
     
     Dan

>     If "know" is the proper analog then it would be "have snown"
>     instead of "have snewn."

Oooops (both singular and plural)		>>>==>PStJTT

Re .12:  To follow up on the info John presented from the old
style guide...

The latest (Sept 1987) edition of the "32V Style Guide"
(used by all - or at least most - software doc groups) drops
any mention of "datum" being "preferred." Instead, it simply
says (Section 3.4):

     It is common in technical writing to use _data_ with a
     singular verb form and not to use _datum_ at all. For
     example:
     
     The data is transferred along parallel lines.

     Because this practice has wide acceptance, you may use
     this style in software manuals.

I've been in software documentation (writer and supervisor) for DEC
for ten years. I use "data" as singular all the time. I'd be surprised
if "data" appears with a plural verb (or "datum" appears at all) in any 
DEC user manual published in the last few years.

�    < Note 521.14 by ZFC::DERAMO "I am, therefore I'll think." >
�                         -< Why isn't it "opii"? :-) >-

    Because it's third declension.

    I have to side with Pat in this case. I think that each of us
    has a grammatical rule that he refuses to follow on the basis
    that it makes no logical sense. Some folks feel it's OK to end
    sentences with prepositions, some feel that "they" is acceptable
    as a generic singular pronoun, some people refuse to include
    delimiting punctuation within quotations if it isn't part of the
    original quotation. And some people feel that "data" is an
    acceptable singular form.
    
    I can be as pedantic at times as the next person, but the fact
    is that English is changing all of the time. The only way to
    "fight" that change, is just to use English the way you feel it
    should be used, and hope that others learn by example. It's
    unfortunate in a way, but obsessive pedantry, I'm afraid, only
    nets you scorn these days.
    
    --- jerry

    I'm not taking any particular side on this, but re .12: "the data
    is transferred along parallel lines", surely this implies that here
    data is plural (as there are separate bit streams) :-)

    I would accept 'data' as singular, due to its accepted common usage.
    But I wince when I hear people pronouncing it 'dahta'.
    
    I get much more wound up when people use 'media' as though it were
    a singular word.  Double yech!
    
    Jeff.

    	I am old english as opposed to new american, and I still
    spell "programme" and I hate the idea of having to use "datums"
    as the plural of datum just because some people think data are
    singular.
    
    	Anyone care to take on whether we should use cactuses (plural)
    or a cacti (singular)? I have heard both.

    re:.21
    
    Though "cactuses" is accepted, "cactus" is from the Latin, so
    "cacti" should be the proper plural.
    
    On the other hand, or perhaps the other tentacle, "octopi" should
    not be an acceptable plural for "octopus" (I believe that I've
    brought this up before in this file, but I'm too lazy to search
    for it). It should be either "octopusses" or "octopodes".
    
    In the same vein...
    
    In one of my sillier moods, as I was engaged in a discussion of
    the film FANTASIA, I referred to the herd of winged horses during
    the "Pastoral" segment as "pegasi".
    
    --- jerry

    .21 and .22 reminded me of the apochryphal story of the keeper of
    small mammals at a zoo.  He started to write to another zoo with
    a request to buy two mongeese.  This didn't look right so he started
    again with a request to buy two mongooses.
    
    In desperation he wrote "We would like to buy a mongoose.  If you
    have a second one for sale we would like to buy that too."
    
    And the answer is:
    
    Mongoose is an Indian (Asia not Red) word, with a plural of mongooses
    
    Nick

    Re: .22
    
    And if you had enough of them, you would have a ...
    
    
    
    Quorum pegasorum

     At a previous job I once got a memo mentioning the
     Christmas bonii.

    Data as a singular is vaguely bogus, but it's rather late to stop
    people from using it.
    
    Media as a singular is a lot more galling.  The word was hardly
    known until Mr. McLuhan started spewing it, and by now it's so tired
    that we have an entire generation of quasiliterate engineers referring
    to the "Media Access Layer".
    
    The IEEE shoulda been flunked.

    Data (singular) is a non-count noun, like rice, sugar, and grits.
    Non-count nouns are sort of plural. A parallel construction to the data
    in parallel lines would be sugar in parallel tubes. If we make a
    sentence like, "The sugar is moved into the bins through parallel
    tubes." The sugar is singular, just as the data is. 
    
    I don't thinl we have to worry about "datas" for the same reason.
    "Datas" is as intuitively wrong as "rices." 
           
    	Jon

    But does this mean that if we have been using using a datum, and
    then we find we have a second one we have to call them datums to
    avoid confusion with a non-count noun? Or have we just been using
    a data all along and now we have them data?

    Re .27 (Jon):
    
    >Data (singular) is a non-count noun, like rice, sugar, and grits.
    >Non-count nouns are sort of plural. A parallel construction to the data
    >in parallel lines would be sugar in parallel tubes. 
     
    "Non-count noun"?   Different from "No 'count"? ;-|
    
    You've opened up a whole new area of discussion!
    
    "Sugar" and "rice" are names of amorphous group substances (i.e., a pile
    of sugar or a pile of rice has no overall structure, even though
    the particles comprising it might have); however, the plural "sugars"
    and "rices" have validity when talking about types (e.g., "There
    are three sugars in that flavoring," meaning that it contains, say,
    dextrose, levulose, and fructose).  One could add "oil" and "water"
    to that category.
    
    Does "data" fit with these?  I think not.  But it's the best argument
    so far (much better than, "Well, people have been using it, so it's
    okay").
    
    Decisions, decisions.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

>    "Sugar" and "rice" are names of amorphous group substances (i.e., a pile
>    of sugar or a pile of rice has no overall structure, even though
>    the particles comprising it might have); however, the plural "sugars"
>    and "rices" have validity when talking about types (e.g., "There
>    are three sugars in that flavoring," meaning that it contains, say,
>    dextrose, levulose, and fructose).  One could add "oil" and "water"
>    to that category.

Data is a likewise amorphous substance.  There is no way to tell one bit 
from another except by artificial structures imposed on it.  On the 
other hand, if you are looking at a system from a different level than 
I, you might only be interested in collections of bits.  (You might call 
an ASCII character a datum, for example, while to me it would be data, 
since it is made of many bits.)  Would we then call the two groupings 
"datas?"

>                                            But it's the best argument
>    so far (much better than, "Well, people have been using it, so it's
>    okay").

Yeah, who would want to allow new words just because that's the way people 
speak?  We shouldn't use words unless we are granted permission by 
books.  Specifically dictionaries and style guides which are of divine
origin, since people wouldn't be allowed to use the words in the books
without the permission of other books. 
					>>>==>PStJTT

    I use "data" in the same way as "rice" or "sugar".  Generally
    I'm referring to a whole bunch of little things that I think
    of collectively.  In that sense, "data" is almost a synonym
    for "information".
    
    I cheat on "datum", however.  I have not yet run across a
    situation where the clearly singular "data item" was not both
    clearer and more exact.  My philosophy of style has always
    been that if you can't tell whether you should use A or B,
    you'd better rewrite the sentence . . .
    
    --bonnie 

    re .29:
    
    I realize it's probably bad form to start using grammatical terms in a
    discussion of religion, but "non-count" is a technical term used by
    grammarians and linguists. Nouns in English can be divided into "count
    nouns" (books, computers, bricks, etc.) and "non-count nouns" (sugar,
    rice, flour, data, etc). Other languages do this too, but I digress.
    
    I suppose that you can argue that non-count nouns have no underlying
    structure, but they seem to have one to me. Sugar, flour, and rice
    have grains. Oil and water have molecules. Data has items or pieces.
    I also think that one can make a better case for data being amorphous
    than any of the other examples. 
    
    Take a single piece of data -- a datum. In this case a file. Is it
    really a datum? No, it's more closely data because it's made up of a
    bunch of records. Is a record a datum? No, it's data because it's made
    up of a bunch of fields. A field? No, it's made up of bytes. A byte?
    No, it's made up of bits. So what we end up with is that a datum is a
    bit. I find this unsatisfying, as a bit (or even a byte) doesn't hold
    enough information to be rightly considered *data*. On the other hand,
    why use the word "datum" at all, if all it means is a bit? I mean, we
    have this *perfectly* good word -- bit -- that describes what the thing
    is far better than a weasel word like "datum." Calling the humble bit a
    datum is like calling a garbage collector a sanitation engineer.
    
    	Jon 
     

    re .32 (Jon):
    
    Good points.  However ...
    
    >............................................ On the other hand,
    >why use the word "datum" at all, if all it means is a bit? I mean, we
    >have this *perfectly* good word -- bit -- that describes what the thing
    >is far better than a weasel word like "datum."
    
    I _like_ that reasoning.  But even better: why use "data" at all?
    There are adequate synonyms (information, input, etc.).  Then the
    problem goes away entirely. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re .33:
    
    Well, now we've run into the problem of smiley faces. You write
    something sarcastic and they take you seriously. (Patrick take note). 
    
    Data is not information any more than it is a bit. It is subtly
    different from information. One of the nice things about English is
    that we make all sorts of fine distinctions. "Climb" does not mean
    quite the same thing as "ascend." and so on.
    
    Anyway, getting back to the topic, Are we agreed that data is?
    
    	Jon

.31�< Note 521.31 by BLURB::RANDALL "Bonnie Randall Schutzman" >
.31�                               -< try cheating >-
.31�
.31�    I use "data" in the same way as "rice" or "sugar".  Generally

    Hmmm. Dinner at your house must be interesting, Bonnie.
    
    
    Ian.

    Re .34 (Jon):
    
    Do as thou wilt.  For me, data are.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

re .32:

>    re .29:
>    
>    I realize it's probably bad form to start using grammatical terms in a
>    discussion of religion, but "non-count" is a technical term used by
>    grammarians and linguists. Nouns in English can be divided into "count
>    nouns" (books, computers, bricks, etc.) and "non-count nouns" (sugar,
>    rice, flour, data, etc). Other languages do this too, but I digress.


What about other "non-count" nouns?  Two that come to mind immediately are 
"sheep" and "deer".  These seem to be even more "non-count" than sugar or rice 
because (as someone pointed out earlier) you can have a well formed sentence 
such as:

	There are several sugars used in soft drinks: dextrose, fructose, 
	sucrose, etc.

				or

	Primitive rices (Oo-song, Wan-po, Foo-gai) were first cultivated in 
	the Indus Valley.

...but it is difficult to construct a similar sentence with "sheep" or "deer".  

Perhaps something like:

	There are three deer(s?) native to North America: the white tail, the 
	mule, and the caribou.

				or

	Several of the sheep(s?) of the English midlands (the Romney, the 
	Dorset, the Shropshire) have been introduced into Canada.

Can anyone suggest other strongly non-count nouns?


Larry

    re: .37, how about "moose" and "cattle"?

    re .37:
    
    Sheep and deer are not non-count nouns. They are nouns in which the
    plural is the same as the singular. You can still count one sheep, two
    sheep, etc. You cannot count one flour, two flours, three flours. That
    is the essence of what makes a noun count or non-count -- if you can
    count it, it's a count noun. 
    
    Also, in the discussion of sugar that Steve brought up, there are
    two different words being used, sugar[1] and sugar[2].
    
    Sugar[1] is a non-count noun. It is a substance, the stuff one might
    put in one's coffee. Sugar[2] is a category describing substances. 
    
    Sucrose in a bowl is sugar[1]. The three sugars in your soft drink are
    sugar[2]. 
    
    Is the distinction clear?
    
    With regard to the rice, I think it is less awkward to say, "Primitive
    rice (Oo-song, Wan-po, Foo-gai varieties) was first cultivated in the
    Indus Valley." 
    
    	Jon

    Re: .32
    
    	"I also think that one can make a better case for data being amorphous
    	than any of the other examples."

    But what you've shown is that all the supposedly amorphous substances
    can be reduced to discrete, atomic particles: grains, molecules, bits.
    How is one more or less amorphous than the others?

	"So what we end up with is that a datum is a bit.  I find this
    	unsatisfying, as a bit (or even a byte) doesn't hold enough
    	information to be rightly considered *data*. On the other hand,
    	why use the word "datum" at all, if all it means is a bit?"


    No, a datum is not a bit, any more than rice is a grain of rice.
    The bit is just the atomic unit by which information is measured.
    Saying that a bit doesn't hold enough information to be considered
    data is like saying that a molecule of water isn't enough to be
    considered water.

    In fact, what this seems to show is that we imagine "amorphousness"
    when the discrete particles are too small to be perceived and too
    numerous to be counted.
    
    By this logic, data should be treated like water, sugar, rice, and
    oil (sounds like a pretty reasonable breakfast to me) and kept in
    the singular.
    
Lew Lasher

    re: .36
    
    Quite interesting -- come over for a byte of chips some time . . . 
    
    re: .40
    
    Data and sugar may be made up of discrete particles, but they
    still do not have collective form.  The form that gives meaning to
    data is imposed from outside; it lies in the mind of the person
    defining the data (usually through the filter of a program).
    Without that order, the data may as well be a pile of sugar
    crystals for all the sense it makes.  
    
    --bonnie 

    The example that was brought up of "sheep" and "deer" (as well
    as "moose" and "fish") is a good one. What it indicates is that
    using "data" as a singular noun will not necessarily cause the
    creation of "datas" as a plural form. Since there is a precedent
    for the same word being used for both the singular and plural
    forms, so let it be with "data".
    
    Actually, I can think of another precedent for using "data" as
    a singular form: the word "people". "People" is usually considered
    a collective noun that takes a plural verb: "The people in this
    room are becoming angry." Still, there are occasions when it is
    used as a singular: "We are a people strong and free."
    
    --- jerry

    	And I always thought that you couldn't count sheep because you
    went to sleep before you finished :-)

Worse news... unlike sugar or oil bits have no physical reality.  You 
cannot isolate a bit.  Bits only exist in the imagination.  In computers 
they are represented by an electrical charge, on paper they are 
represented by a pencil stroke or some such, but they are one of the 
most non-countable non-count items.

In re my minor digression on smiley faces, I'm surprised that several 
notable noters have mentioned it.  I was just making a statement of my 
personal views and not making a case that anyone else should adopt them. 
I never really thought anyone read what I wrote anyway.  I wonder if 
this was the fifteen minutes Warhol was talking about...

					>>>==>PStJTT

chaos

    re .40:
    
    Let me give another analogy. Take a piece of chalk. Break it in half.
    What you end up with is two pieces of chalk, not two half-pieces of
    chalk. There is no such thing as half of a piece of chalk. If you break
    those pieces, you get four pieces of chalk. Admittedly, these are
    smaller pieces of chalk, but they are discrete pieces of chalk. 
    
    You can break the chalk into such small pieces that they are no longer
    pieces of chalk, they become chalk dust or something like that. The
    point of this is that while you can mush up the chalk to the point that
    its identity changes, you can't (in a certain sense) break a piece of
    chalk in "half." Chalk is either a whole or dust (insert a bit of hand
    waving here). 
    
    Similarly, you can break a piece of data -- which is usually some
    collective unitt -- up into smaller pieces of data, but these smaller
    pieces are most often collective units themselves. It is far easier to
    break up the data into such small pieces that the pieces are no longer
    themselves data than it is to break the data up into pieces such that
    any piece is a datum. I can think of ways to do this, but they are all
    rather contrived examples. The general case is that data breaks up into
    more data or mere bits, similarly to the way that pieces of chalk break
    up into more pieces or mere dust. This is why is makes sense for data
    to be a singular, non-count, collective noun. It is also why it is more
    amorphous than simple sugar or flour -- it has a nested structure,
    which these things don't. 
    
    	Jon

    re: .45
    
    When you have two teenagers in the same house, but with separate
    rooms, you have two separate, unique, and individual chaoses.

    --bonnie

    Re .46 (Jon):
    
    > ... There is no such thing as half of a piece of chalk. ...
    
    Of course there is.  Take a 2-inch-long piece of chalk.  Measure
    along its side one inch.  Draw a circle normal to the length around
    the periphery of the chalk piece (that is, making a circular
    cross-section).  On each side of the circle is half a piece of chalk.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S. -- Re "chaos":
    
    The word "gas" derives from "chaos" (there's no internal structure
    to a gas).  By back formation, since there are gases, there would
    be chaoses.
    
    "Fish," like "sugar," can take the plural.  "Fishes" refers to
    different varieties of fish, just as "sugars" refers to different
    varieties of sugar.  Same with "oil," by the way.
     
    SK
    

    
    re: .45, etc.
    
    On the same lines, why do they call it "a pair of pants"?  Has anyone
    ever seen a single "pant"?
    
    Also, could anyone tell me what is the singular of "pence", as in
    10 pence, tuppence, etc.?  It should be "pent"!
    
    thanks,
    Cheryl
    
    

    Re: .49:
    
    According to my dictionary, pence (British English) is the plural of
    penny.
    
    Also, pants is a contraction of pantaloons, so the singular would
    be pantaloon.

    Re: .44
    
    > Bits only exist in the imagination.  In computers they are
    > represented by an electrical charge, on paper they are represented
    > by a pencil stroke or some such, but they are one of the most
    > non-countable non-count items.
    
    If it is the case that bits are 'imaginary' or abstract (which is
    not at all clear), why must it follow from that that they are not
    countable?  If they are distinguishable, they are certainly countable.
    And unless they are distinguishable, they are unlikely to be useful
    as bits.  Ideas are certainly abstract or imaginary entities, and they
    can be counted: "I had four original ideas today."
    
    Bernie

.50�< Note 521.50 by TLE::SAVAGE "Neil, @Spit Brook" >
.50�                  -< Half a pair of pants is one trouser :-) >-
.50�
.50�    Re: .49:
.50�    
.50�    According to my dictionary, pence (British English) is the plural of
.50�    penny.

    
    One of the things which irritates me a great deal is the way people
    talk about 'one pence'. This is often done by small children, or
    at least those large enough to appreciate counting and money, but
    I also hear it used by those who are older and should know better.
    
    
    Ian.

    re: pants
    
    Actually .50's tongue in cheek remark is exactly right:  half a
    pair of pants is one trouser.  History follows, so if you aren't
    into the evolution of word meanings, you might want to pass on. 
    
    As .50 points out, pants is shorthand for pantaloons, a European
    garment that arrived in England with (I think) William of Orange. 
    
    The trouser is a much older garment of Scottish origin; the
    Scottish word is also the ancestor of "truss".  There used to be a
    verb "to trowse", meaning to wrap up or tie up.  Trousers were the
    things you wrapped your legs in, one per leg, not attached at the
    top.  People of both sexes wore them under a kilt, a dress, or a
    tunic. 
        
    Well, let's be blunt -- at one point they were what we would call
    "stockings and garter belt."  Hence the need for the codpiece. 
    
    When pants arrived on the scene, there were several reasons
    why they couldn't be called trousers:

    *  Pants are relatively loose.  
    
    *  Pants are attached to each other.
    
    *  Noblemen might wear highly fashionable pantaloons but only
       working men wore trousers.
    
    And after noblemen refused to wear trousers, working men who
    aspired to the middle class started refusing to wear trousers,
    too.  They wore pants instead, leaving the trousers for the women.
    I'm not sure why or when the women's garment came to be called
    "stockings" or "tights" instead of "trousers" (I think it predates
    the trousers/pants switch), but since the word "trousers" had
    nothing to refer to any more, the frugal British yeomen (tongue in
    cheek) continued to use it as a word for the garment that men wear
    over their nether parts. 

    So even though pants, and trousers, only come in pairs these
    days, there is such a thing as a pant, or a trouser.  

    --bonnie

    
    The interesting thing is that we Bristish wear pants over our nether
    parts, pants being short for underpants. So at night I remove both
    my trousers *and* pants.
    
    paul v

    Re .54 (Paul):
    
    Ah, but "underpants" are under something, just like an overcoat
    is over something.  One presumes that underpants are under ... pants,
    unless you take it to mean "pants that are worn under" .. which
    makes a vague kind of sense since "uunderpants," or "panties," or
    "undies," are worn under dresses, skirts, and women's slacks.
    
    Anyway, as a pilot, if I were to say I was "flying by the seat of
    my pants," I would still anticipate I was fully clothed, not stripped
    down to underwear.
    
    Pants, really, are sounds from dogs, especially on hot summer days.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    All this thinking about underpants on the nether parts could make
    me start to pant.
    
    --bonnie 

    This note needed a little more zip - and it seems to be getting
    seamier by the minute.  But I must go - I'm getting a little behind
    in my work (like the butcher who backed into his machinery...)
    
    -Jody
    

    Since I'm not a man of the cloth, I can slip into the unmentionable
    practice of shorting one's expectations.  Seamingly, the underpinnings
    of this concept fit to a tee; shirtly, I might expand on this.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    So? Why skirt the issue. Why fob off the question of these data/this
    data with replies that intend to pull the wool over our eyes? Is
    there no one that can speak the truth? Or is truth any tailored
    fiction?
    jc <- signature added for com -pleat ness
    

>    If it is the case that bits are 'imaginary' or abstract (which is
>    not at all clear), why must it follow from that that they are not
>    countable?  

Your distinction between abstract and imaginary, is of course, more 
precise.  

Since the discussion is already boardering on the religious, it would be
Jesuitical to argue this point. I don't believe you can *really* count
things that don't exist; you can only count things that are representing
the abstract items.  It seems to me that a fundamental property of
counting is that a count can be verified.  Abstract items cannot be
verified unless both parties agree to a stand-in item that can be used
to represent the abstract one.  

The transaction of substitution is so common that we don't think about
it much, but we can still see it occur in children or people being
introduced to an abstract concept for the first time.  They often
attempt to get us to fix the abstract idea in something concrete, and we
come up with similies between the concrete and the abstract which we
offer to them and they try to take too far.  We stop them and refine the 
image.  After several passes through this cycle, with luck, they
gradually get a feel for what is being presented and come to accept the 
stand-in item.

The distinction between imaginary and abstract is important in that the
stand-in item in the above is often a mental image, which can be said to
be imaginary as well.  But a mental image is based upon our experience 
in physical reality, while the concept of "bit" or "three" is not.

					>>>==>PStJTT 

    Re: .60
    
    > I don't believe you can *really* count things that don't exist;
    > you can only count things that are representing the abstract ones.
    > It seems to me that a fundamental property of counting is that
    > a count can be verified.  Abstract items cannot be verified unless
    > both parties agree to a stand-in item that can be used to represent
    > the abstract one.
    
    I see no problem at all in counting either nonexistent or abstract
    entities.  I can, for example, count King Lear's daughters and Mr
    Pickwick's traveling companions.  None of them exist.  I can also
    count the odd whole numbers between one and ten: there are five
    elements in the set {1,3,5,7,9}.  I can count the points on the
    circumference of a circle intersected by a straight line.  If I
    could not count such abstract entities, I could not do much of
    mathematics.
    
    What is the "stand-in" you speak of?  Who are the two parties who
    must agree to the stand-in?
    
    Bernie

    In Latin, 'data' is the neutral plural form of the participle 
    of the verb 'dare': to give; it means "things that have been given".

    The neutral plural is often used to indicate "things" in general;
    in this case, it's considered a substantive, and doesnt need to refer to
    an other noun; see impedimenta etc ...
    But the singular participle is normally not used that way. It refers
    to some noun, and takes its gender from it.
    In other words, the singular of 'data' is {datus, data, datum} in
    nominative case; and not necessarily 'datum'. [I know there exists a 
    poetic substantive 'datum', but let's not complicate things].
   
    For example, if you offer various things to a friend, these things
    are 'data' in Latin. 
    Now if you offer a single thing, it's 'datum'; 
    	 	     a male dog --> 'datus';  
    		     a young female slave  --> 'data'.   
    
    Based on the above, an initial recommendation could be:
    Whenever an individual data element comes along, check the gender and
    you'll know if you should use 'datus', 'data' or 'datum' to designate 
    him, her, or it  -- with all respect due to the Latin grammar.
    
    Here in France we translated 'data' literally a long time ago,
    and we use the noun "donn�e". For example "une importante donn�e du 
    probl�me" or  "la saisie automatique des donn�es".
    
    In English and other languages which apparentlty don't translate
    'data', you just decide how you want to handle it. Normally in such
    cases, the most frequent usage will tend to become the law. 

    For example, you could decide that the singular of 'data' is klakmuf,
    or xxszk, or data. It's your problem. 
    Perhaps this is one of the first times the issue was explicitly
    raised, and no doubt the Joyoflexers will deeply influence the solution.
    
    For the time being I'll continue to use 'data element' which is
    generally accepted in texts related to data management.
    
    	roger   

    	Where do I go to be given young female slaves (data) ?
    
    	My dictionary gives "datum" as "fixed starting point of scale"
    and "datum line" as "horizontal line from which heights and depths
    are measured in surveying". Presumably the Romans and early surveyors
    did not realise that it would take a large number of bits to represent
    these things, and so regarded them as singular.
    
    	I would regard a datum as the mathematical description of a
    single object. If it explicit that there are several then the
    description is data. The position and luminosity of the sun is a
    datum when compared in a collection of stars where it is an item
    of data. The same information about this galaxy is a datum in the
    context of the universe.
    
    	A bit is only significant as a datum if one is working with
    binary logic. I have worked with three state logic, and a trit is
    just as valid as a datum.

    re: .63
    
    I agree with your definition of "datum" but is there any logical reason
    why the term "data element" or "data item" isn't just as accurate?  (My
    philosophy of technical writing being that no matter how correct a
    usage is, it's better to avoid something that's going to start an
    argument...) 
    
    --bonnie

    Re .64
    
    > is there any logical reason
    > why the term "data element" or "data item" isn't just as accurate?
    
    With three exceptions, when one noun is used as a noun adjunct to
    modify another noun, the singular form is used for the first noun.
    For example, history book or test tube.  The exceptions seem to be
    such things as data processing system, media access layer, and
    notes file.
    
    Let's see what would happen if things were different:
    
      With one exception, when one noun is used as a nouns adjunct to
      modify anothers noun, the plural form is used for the first noun.
      For example, histories book or tests tube.  The exception is note
      file.  The other two exceptions no longer exist.  Everyone talks
      about data processings systems and media accesses layers.  Even
      the term "note file" is in danger of disappearing, because note
      files are manipulated by the well-known notes files system.
    
    A "datum element" is one of many datum elements.  A "datum item" is
    one of many datum items.  Our profession should be datum processing,
    and the first time I wrote a Fortran-II program to read _data_ at
    run time, the data should have been punched on _datum_ cards.
    
    If "data are" and "datum is" distract an ignorant reader, let
    him or her go to a dictionary.  "Data is" grates on my ears.
    "Data processing" should also be, uh, grateful.  There should
    be an errors message for this.

    Having taken two years of Latin long ago, "data is" grates on my ears
    also. "Data processing is" sounds just fine. The noun is singular.  The
    number of data involved in the collective (batch?) processing is
    irrelevant. If the processing involved only one datum, then I suppose
    "datum processing is " would be appropriate.
    
    An interesting and related question asks how you would express multiple
    processing steps on a single datum. "Datum processing are"? Maybe
    "processing" is always singular.

    Datum processing can apply to any quantity of data.
    A book store can sell any quantity of books.
    A file system can contain any quantity of files.  The glitch
      responsible for deleting these files is not called a data
      storages subsystem.
    
    "Data processing" is incorrect English and has led to all the
    other related errors.

    re .67:
    
    	'"Data processing" is incorrect English and has led to all the
        other related errors.'
    
    Do you have anything to back this assertion up with, or may we assume
    it is simply a crankily expressed opinion?
    
    	Jon