Conference thebay::joyoflex

    
    Criteria is already plural.
    
    The singular noun is criterion.
    
    

    I know.  That's why I drew a picture of the slide and explained
    that it really happened in a DEC presentation.  If I didn't know
    any better, I would either (1) as a reader, accept it without
    question or (2) as a writer, ask a naive question.  Sheesh.

    
    Sorry! I missed the irony in your note.
    
    Also, I recently read the following sentence:
    
       There are various criterias to consider.
    
    On the subject of plurals, how many times have you seen sentences
    containing - "data is ..." ?
    
    Bob

> how many times have you seen sentences containing - "data is ..." ?

Often enough for it to have become an accepted usage.  I fear that the day of 
the datum is over.

Jon

Over in Willston, Vt. about four miles from the DEC plant in So. Burlington, 
there's a store called "Artist's Mediums".  It looks like they sell paints, 
canvas, pastels etc., but maybe this is just a front.  They may really be a 
service organization that communicates with the spirits of Van Gough, Picasso,
Manet, etc. 


Larry

re: .5

�Over in Willston, Vt. about four miles from the DEC plant in So. Burlington, 
�there's a store called "Artist's Mediums".  It looks like they sell paints, 
�canvas, pastels etc., but maybe this is just a front.  They may really be a 
�service organization that communicates with the spirits of Van Gough, Picasso,
�Manet, etc. 

	Minor correction.  From the placement of the apostrophe, 
	they would be able to communicate with the spirits of only
	one artist.  Or if they were really a store, they would
	have only one customer, in which case either that one
	customer buys a lot of supplies, or the store will be
	out of business soon.

	Clay

    If `criteria' were a Gk singular, the plural would probably be
    *criteriata. Personally, of course, I'd go for *criterias
    (being a Fowler man I prefer English plurals). But if they
    mean `reason', what's the criterion for saying anything else;
    `yardstick'? - then say that.
    
    If you accept the -s plural, then you can have
    
    	an agendum	one thing to do (the Latin is either a gerund or
    			a gerundive - a general need for doing, or the
    			doing of a particular thing)
    
    	agendums	more than one agendum - document these and
    			you get an agenda
    
    	agenda		list of things to be done
    
    	agendas		more than one agenda
    
    Similarly referendum/referendums (one or more instances of the
    referring of a single question to the electorate) and
    referenda/referendas (one or more instances of the referring of a
    several questions to the electorate). Of course Auntie Beeb insists on
    saying `referenda', as do most people who think they know the Truth.
    
    Of course, one _could_ go for the Graeco-Latin plural *agendata;
    but there are limits.
    
    b

re: .7

�	Minor correction.  From the placement of the apostrophe, 
�	they would be able to communicate with the spirits of only
�	one artist.                         

Woops!  From the fact that I pluralized "spirits", either the artist who they 
communicate would have to be schizophrenic, or they talk to bottles of booze.

Clay

    When we toughen up a process by inserting lots of criterias we
    criteriate it.

    The criteriative process, eh?  Inspired people have the most
    criteriativity.  People admire their criteriations------  (whoops)

    Danged critters.  Can't get 'em out of your hair.
    
    --bonnie

    G'day,
    
     then a new verb might be bornised...
    
    criteriationise......to list as criteria
    
    then...
    
    
    criteriationisation.... the act of listing as criteria
    
    then....
    
    criteriationisationable... being capable of being listed as a criteria
    
    
    derek
    
    
    

    And then you could say "Our new data requirements are both
    internationalizable and criteriationisationable."
    
    --bonnie

    You might also say "Our new data requirements meet the the standards
    of internationalization (I18N) and criteriationisationability (C24Y)."
    
    >M

    re: .14
    
    Around here they'd probably say "Our new data requirements meet
    the standards of I18N and C24Y" and expect everybody to know what
    they meant.  
    
    The first time I ran across this abbreviation for
    internationalization was when I got a memo telling me I'd better
    sign up for one of three sessions on I18N being held the next
    month, so I could learn about I18N's impact on my writing job. 
    The 'acronym' wasn't spelled out anywhere, nor were any words
    about translation or multinational audiences used, and I thought
    it was a new department of defense standard . . . 
    
    --bonnie

Re.3 et alia

The demise of "data" is further exemplified by Star Trek, TNG.

		Why is Data not called Datum?

This is not more than one of him (them).  Although there was one 
episode with Data's (note the correct use of the apostrophe) brother, 
so for that episode there were Data.

(as a college prof I have queried my students about the singular of
data to no avail but to travail.  The Star Trek line has become a good
one-liner for me to wake up the class.)

Fred                

    Nowadays, asking about the singular of "data" is about as meaningful as
    asking about the singular for "group."  The word "data" has evolved
    from a plural noun to a collective noun -- is that really so difficult
    for people to understand?
    
    					andrew

    The singular of "group" is "gripe".

    re: last
    
    no, the singular of group is groupie......

    I don't really mind about `data'; what's done is done (and there's
    no question in my mind that this issue is dead, although the corpse
    still twitches occasionally).
    
    What I do mind about is the use of `collective' to mean `not
    countable'. An example of a collective noun is PRIDE (of lions);
    an example of a noun that isn't countable is SUGAR. (I know
    there are different sugars, but you know what I mean.)
    
    What _are we supposed to be discussing in this topic?
    
    b

    I think we're discussing the philosophy of plurals.  
    
    I don't understand the distinction .21 is trying to make.  It
    would be physically possible to count the number of grains in a
    bowl of sugar -- difficult, boring, and unrewarding, but possible. 
    Given a sufficient population explosion of lions in a pride, it
    could become equally difficult, though no doubt more exciting, to
    count the lions.  
    
    But you talk about sugar the same way whether you're talking about
    all the sugar in Louisiana or the few grains you spilled from the
    little paper packet while you were trying to pour it in your
    coffee, and a pride of lions would remain a pride even if it
    multiplied into the millions and took over all of central Africa,
    as long as it still operated as a single hunting unit.  
    
    Am I missing something?
    
    --bonnie

    The point is, Bonnie, that in the case of your population explosion
    there'd still be only _one_ pride; and that would be easily countable,
    however countless its elements.  A population explosion would more
    probably involve a growth in the number of (countable) prides.
    Collective nouns, as far as I know, are always countable.
    
    In that case, it'd be difficult, boring, and unrewarding, but possible
    to count them. I agree that it's theoretically difficult, boring, and 
    unrewarding, but possible to count the number of grains of sugar in
    any particular serving; but pride is to lion as teaspoon (or truck,
    or ship-load) is to sugar; _sugar_ is no more collective than _lion_.
    
    The touch-stone (ah, another good substitute for criterion) is whether
    you can have SOME of it: some sugar, some grass, some data, some iron
    filings - but not some pride (of lions), some flock (of sheep) [where
    _some_, of course, means `a quantity of' rather than `any old'.
    
    Back to work.
    
    b
    
    

    Yes, .22, you do miss something--the distinction between 
    "count" nouns and "mass" nouns.
    
    Count nouns are nouns mostly thought of as single items, perhaps
    bunched together, such as "car" or "planet".  Since the count is
    important, one gives either the number ("three little pigs") or
    marks the noun for either singular or plural (some count nouns 
    have identical singular and plural forms, but are still count nouns
    (e.g. "sheep")).
    
    Mass nouns are usually thought of as a substance which is measured
    out, so one gives the container: "a cup of sugar", "a ton of coal".
    
    It's possible to switch the categories, but it's odd and so slightly
    humorous: "a ton of cats", "two waters".  In both cases, the meaning
    is clear--enough cats to weigh a ton, or two different kinds of water.
    
    There is a third, small, category of nouns, where the substance and
    the size are joined: "puddle" vs. "pond" vs. "lake", for example,
    all meaning a body of water (a mass noun) of a certain size. These
    act like count nouns ("two lakes" sounds fine, right?).
    
    Other languages can use different systems: some don't have mass nouns,
    so that "water" would have to be translated by picking the right size
    from a range of words in the third category above; some only have mass
    nouns, so that one says, effectively, "one lump of cat"; some have other
    kinds of nouns, or no nouns at all.
    
    				-John Bishop

    Thanks for the effort, .23 and .24, but it sounds to me like
    you're trying two divide two waters.  That's perfectly common
    usage where I'm from -- when two rivers join, that's a meeting of
    the waters.  Sometimes when a muddy stream joins a clear one, you
    can see the two waters for a couple of miles downstream.  
    
.23>    The touch-stone (ah, another good substitute for criterion) is whether
.23>    you can have SOME of it: some sugar, some grass, some data, some iron
.23>    filings - but not some pride (of lions), some flock (of sheep) [where
.23>    _some_, of course, means `a quantity of' rather than `any old'.
    
    But you can have some of a flock of sheep taken to market while
    some of the flock stays behind to graze.  
    
    The distinction still strikes me as a theoretical distinction that
    conveys no information that's of value to the average speaker of
    English.  Which is probably why so many of us "misuse" less and
    fewer.
    
    --bonnie

    re .21:  Who said anything about collective meaning not countable.
    
    That distinction just sorta appeared in your response.
    
    					andrew

    Re .26 -
    
    Yes; my fault; I was trying to avoid a technical term (`count
    noun'). I ended up suggesting that grains of sugar aren't countable,
    which of course they are. But `sugar' is not a count noun. The point
    is not whether you _can_ count it, but whether you _do_. A normal
    English-speaking person, serving tea, would ask `How much sugar?'
    but `How many spoons of sugar?' As .24 said, treating a count noun
    as a non-count noun, or vice versa, sounds faintly humorous.  Again,
    in the tea-serving case, I've heard `How much milk?|One.|[Laughter]]'
    
    
    Re .25
    
    �But you can have some of a flock of sheep taken to market while
    �some of the flock stays behind to graze.  
    
    Precisely; _of_a_. You don't have `some of a sugar'. You have
    a number of lions in a pride; you have a number of grains in
    a [quantity of] sugar. If you're not a bio-chemist, you've
    got to express the quantity. You _could_ ask `How many grains 
    of sugar would you like in your tea?' But no normal,
    civil, English-speaking person would in an everyday situation.
    
    You may be right that this is `a theoretical distinction that
    conveys no information that's of value to the average speaker of
    English. ' But it's fun. And anything that saves the less|fewer
    distinction is worth discussing - `less sugar'/`fewer spoonfuls'.
    
    We could go even further down this rathole by discussing the
    dual (plural but necessarily referring to a pair of things).
    In Ancient Greek there were distinct noun and adjective 
    inflections for the dual number. Many living languages do
    the same - some have different verb inflections too.
    
    b

I remember visiting Windsor Safari pPark last summer. I sat in the tea-bar
sipping tea (with the usual couple of sugars) watching the pride of lions.

That was some pride!

Richard.

    re: .27
    
    I am aware that other languages treat counting in all its
    innumerable permutations in an almost infinite variety of ways,
    but I don't think the fact that Greek has a dual plural has much
    bearing on whether most people speaking US English see a
    meaningful distinction between count and noncount.
    
    But I don't see any distinction of meaning in any of your examples
    and I don't see any distinction of meaning in whether "some" is
    followed by a preposition or not. 
    
    You might have fewer sheep because some of them went to market, or
    you might have less sheep because wolves ate some of them, but I
    don't think many people would say you have either fewer flock or
    less flock.  But that doesn't make "flock" any less a collective
    noun for a bunch of sheep.
    
    In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to
    suspect this is a grammatical principal imported from the Greek
    via Latin by the early grammarians, and that there isn't a clean
    fit to the way English conceptualizes collective nouns.  The rules
    you're trying to enumerate sound more like the rules for French
    partitives than they do to how English works.
    
    --bonnie

How have I stayed out of this for so long --- it is one of my favourite
subjects!!!

In referring to a collective noun, such as a flock, if you take one away
from a flock you still have a flock ... albeit a smaller flock.

For a noun such as sugar, we use it in one of two ways ...
   either a sugar referring to a type of sugar
         or sugar referring to some unknown quantity of the stuff.

To assign a quantitative amount to types of sugar we simply say
         "There are two sugars on the shelf"
meaning  "There are two kinds of sugar on the shelf"

To assign a quantitative amount to sugar (for a recipe for example) we say
         "Two spoonsfull please"
meaning  "Two spoonsfull of sugar please"

You cannot count "of sugar" ... but you can count spoonsfull.

Waters does seem to be a little different though, probably because we are
really talking about a noun distinct from water or types of water.  Waters 
tends to imply the water and flow and other things unique to a body of water.  
If we talk of different types of water, then the count rules like sugar
apply, but if we talk about the waters of the Mississippi, we are talking
about something different.

To me, the distinction between countable, non-countable, and collective
nouns seems very clear in most cases, so I see no problem with the "less/
fewer" rule ...  I suspect the mis-use is based on lack of teaching of the
distinction rather than confusion.   For example,even though I was educated
for the most part in England, I only had one teacher who was sensitive to
the distinction.

Stuart

	The Stop and Shop in our community used to have several checkout aisles
labeled  "12 ITEMS OR LESS".  Used to set my teeth slightly on edge.
	Now it's been remodeled, and the new signs say "12 ITEMS OR FEWER".
	I'll have to seek out the manager and congratulate him.

    You have ten sheep, a wolf eats one, now you have fewer.
    You have a cow, the wolf eats one of its legs, now you have less cow.
    
    			-John Bishop

You can have a quantity of sugar.   You can call it "some sugar".  
You can have a quantity of lions.   You can call it a pride of lions, or
a group of lions.  And you might refer to it as "some lions".  Note the
difference.   'Lion' refers to a discrete thing, to speak of some of
them, you need to make it plural.   'Sugar' does not refer to a discrete
thing, but to any arbitrary quantity of a substance.  You don't make it
plural to talk about some of it.

Neither of these is collective.  A collective noun refers to a quantity
of discrete things.  

Dave C.

    Re .-whatever
    
    If you have a flock of sheep and lose a sheep, you still have a
    flock?  Are 0 a flock?  We have more flocks than sheep!

    I agree with .33. I wish I'd expressed myself in those terms when
    I first commented on the use of `collective'. All I meant to say, and
    wild horses won't convince me otherwise, is that `data' is not
    a collective noun (which doesn't mean that I think it's a count
    noun - which I don't). Distinctions that lead people to use
    `collective' accurately seem to me to be of practical value.
    
    b
    
    

    G'day,
    
    As I believe I was responsible, at least in part, for this rathole
    about the word 'data', it must be for me to tidy it up, and maybe plug
    it. (It firstly being an onus, and secondly and thirdly, the rathole.)
    
    The criterion for doing this is that enough data has been collected, to
    determine a solution to the problem. Less data would have prevented
    this, as would fewer statements proclaiming data. Perhaps, I should
    gripe about grouping groupies, but that is beyond my pride. 
    
    So I have determined, 'data' is now a synonym for 'information', in the
    general case. In the same way as we, generally, do not say "I have the
    informations", nor " Where are the informations", but rather express
    information in the singular asking "Have you all the information?", so
    we deal with data. 
    
    'Datum' has diminished to a point of reference - a datum mark, for
    example being a mark indicating a significant point. The plural of this
    would be 'datum marks', as in "Have you seen the datum marks concerning
    the flood heights for the rivers of southern England?" 
    
    Alles is Klar?
    
    derek
    
    

    Computers media is usually used for storing two kinds of things:
    data and programs.  Data is usually contained in data files, and
    describes characteristics of some objects, without saying what to
    do with them.  Programs is usually contained in sources files or
    (helpful naming convention here) objects files, and does not describe
    objects, but performs manipulations on the data files.
    
    Is these clear?
    
    A new singularity is in formation.

    Actually, derek, I'd like to thank you for clarifying the fact that
    "data" is not a collective noun.
    
    So, a more general question:  is there a name for those nouns whose
    meaning implies amount -- words like: information, sugar, heat, data,
    and so on?
    
    					andrew

    "Mass noun", as mentioned before.
    
    "Pride" is a count noun ("there are four prides in the park..."),
    and as such you can say "There used to be fewer prides" rather than
    "Now there are less pride".
    
    			-John Bishop

    Thanks, John -- I missed the earlier note.
    
    					andrew

.39>    "Pride" is a count noun ("there are four prides in the park..."),
.39>    and as such you can say "There used to be fewer prides" rather than
.39>    "Now there are less pride".

The park was created specifically to support many groups of lions.  Therefore,
the citizens have more pride in the park when there are more prides in the
park.

re .36

>                 In the same way as we, generally, do not say "I have the
>   informations", nor " Where are the informations", but rather express
>   information in the singular asking "Have you all the information?", so
>   we deal with data. 

Yes, but it is becoming common to talk about mail as though it were the
name of a discreet entity, as a synonym for 'message.'   I've often seen
statements like "... didn't receive the mails that xxx sent ..."   That
should be 'mail' not 'mails.'   This is in contrast to the messages
being lost in the mails.  That is quite proper, because there is more
than one mail delivery system involved.

Dave C.

    If there were any way to force postal officials to search for discarded
    items,* then the mails would be lost in the mail lost in the mails?
    
    
    (* OK, in some countries, this is an exaggeration, but in some it isn't.)

    I have seen information used in the plural more than once, as in 
    "Do you have all the informations you need to write that report?"
    
    --bonnie

In the intelligence copmmunity, "an information" is a document, and thus
the plural can be used as well.

-dave

G'day,
    
    
    
             <<< Note 812.45 by TRCC2::BOWERS "Dave Bowers @WHO" >>>

>>In the intelligence copmmunity, "an information" is a document, and thus
>>the plural can be used as well.

Isn't a copmmunity what a policeman grants to his informers??
    
    
    And I must be careful to not suggest that those not in the intelligence
    copmmunity are not intelligent, is that not so?
    
    
    
    Now, a word to describe words that indicate a quantifiable item, but
    which do not specifically reflect a deliberate collection action- that
    is, a natural or specifically generated grouping of like items.
    
    Now sugar is a substance. A collection of sugar would be a heap or pile
    or packet or maybe even cube of sugar. Data is a substance too, even if
    not substantial enough for tactility... ;-( but data too can be found
    in heaps, piles and packets, so perhaps there is substantial evidence
    to ascribe the word 'quantitive' to these words, since they describe
    quantities of the substances? There would be quantitive nouns
    describing small amounts - drip (of water), puddle (of water),
    scattering (of seeds), smattering (of foreign words) or large
    quantities - ocean (of seawater), pile (of salt) or even a library (of
    information).
    
    derek 

>    I have seen information used in the plural more than once, as in 
>    "Do you have all the informations you need to write that report?"
 
"Informations" is fine in French of course. As is "accommodations" in 
American English, whereas to most English-speaking people(s?) it looks
distinctly strange with an "s".

John

    
> As is "accommodations" in 
> American English, whereas to most English-speaking people(s?) it looks
> distinctly strange with an "s".
    
    If you have to make an accommodation for a difference, and another
    accommodation for another difference, do you not make accommodations?

    Only if you have reservations.  
    
    --bonnie

    reservations...isn't that where Indians live???

    Reservations are what you make to make sure your accommodations
    are waiting for you.
    
    Frequently spoken of as plural reservations and plural
    accommodations even when there's only one reservation for one
    room.
    
    --bonnie

    Once I went to a fancy restaurant and the maitre d' asked me, "Do you
    have any reservations?"
    
    I put on an innocent look, beamed at him and said, "Don't be
    ridiculous! Your restaurant comes *most* highly recommended!"
    
    He didn't know how to handle that. I could tell by the look on his
    face. I counted to four, put on a wry smile and said, "Yes, for four
    people. The name is Callas."
    
    	Jon

>    face. I counted to four, put on a wry smile and said, "Yes, for four
>    people. The name is Callas."
     ^^^^^^

Jon,

considering the topic at hand, shouldn't this be: "For four peoples"?
                                                                  ^

:-)

Arie

�    face. I counted to four, put on a wry smile and said, "Yes, for four
�    people. The name is Callas."
    
    It's interesting that you had to count.
    
    Ray

>>    face. I counted to four, put on a wry smile and said, "Yes, for four
>>    people. The name is Callas."
>     ^^^^^^
>
>Jon,
>
>considering the topic at hand, shouldn't this be: "For four peoples"?
 
Or even "the names are Callas"?

Now define a Calla.

John

� Now define a Calla.

    The feminine of Callow?  (: >,)
    
    Ducking and covering,
    Sadie Vary

    Actually, there were only three Callases. The last was a Cannoy.
    
    Playing the straightman, I'll explain how to play the zany. The trick on
    timing is to say to yourself, "Pause, two, three, four." before you
    drop the punchline. On less puzzling remarks, you count three or two.
    If you only have to count one, then your joke isn't very subtle, is it?
    
    (And I thought it was Spanish for "street", or something like that...)
    
    	Jon

    Sounds like a rather callous thing to do.

    G'day,
    
    re what is a calla? Dunno, but they are super, and fragellistic.......
    
    
    ok ok I won't give up my day job...
    
    
    derek
    

Getting back to the topic, I read a document recently that used the term 
"equipments" repeatedly.  I have never seen that term before, nor have I 
since.  The first definition of "equipment" in my Digital standard issue AHD 
begins "the things . . .", so I assume that there is no such thing as 
"equipments".  There is a second definition, namely "the act of equipping" 
that I suppose could have a plural form, but that was clearly not what the 
author intended.

Clay

    re .58:
    
    (Obscure multi-lingual puns follow -- I explain them up front because I
    don't want to waste them)
    
    Careful -- you're in Tokyo, and you shouldn't crow to loudly about name
    puns before you hit the translate-K key. The results could be
    devastating...
    
    	��

A calla's a lily.

    > you shouldn't crow too loudly about name puns before you hit the
    > translate-K key. The results could be devastating...
    > ��
    
    Yup, my secretary told me how it is pronounced, and its meaning.
    But what is the translate-K key?  Would it convert your name to
    ISO Latin-1?  How does one invoke translate-K?

    "Equipments" seems to be Chinese English.  Every ethnic group seems
    to break English a little bit differently.  Except, of course, for
    native speakers, who break it in millions of different ways.

    Re: .65
    
    Right.  When non-native English speakers break the rules, it sounds
    foreign.  When native speakers break the rules, it sounds right, even
    if wrong.  That probably says something about what the rules really
    are.