Friam

datum vs. data

Classic

List

Threaded

16 messages Options

glen ep ropella

datum vs. data

I'm looking for a little psychological insight, here. Why do I so often
screw up the subject verb agreement with the word "data"? I know data
is plural... but "datum" is so rare ... and a bit pretentious ... and,
unless you get down to an atomic "bit", any "datum" is probably "data"
if you crack it open and look inside anyway. But these are excuses.
Are my excuses preventing me from using English properly?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: datum vs. data

Data is now accepted as a mass noun by most computing organizations
including those in IEEE. I remember having a long debate about this at
Ames in regards to a publication.

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:29 AM, glen e. p. ropella
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm looking for a little psychological insight, here. Why do I so often
> screw up the subject verb agreement with the word "data"? I know data
> is plural... but "datum" is so rare ... and a bit pretentious ... and,
> unless you get down to an atomic "bit", any "datum" is probably "data"
> if you crack it open and look inside anyway. But these are excuses.
> Are my excuses preventing me from using English properly?
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Nick Thompson

Re: datum vs. data

It's odd that this sort of issue is only an issue for non-linguists. The
idea that a word borrowed from an ancient Mediterranean language should be
declined in English (or is that conjugated) as in the original, would be
absurd to most linguists. So who is it NOT absurd to? Highschool English
teachers? Statistics teachers who are channeling THEIR highschool English
teachers?

I think the reason that it is still a problem relates to its having no
plural. Flock refers to a bunch of sheep, but you can also have flocks.
Data refers to a bunch of numbers, but we can't speak of different bunches
of numbers as "datas".

What rings my bell still is the very frequent use of plural pronouns to make
gender-neutral references. "S/he" is often even uglier, but "they" gives up
one of the distinctions that helps to make sentences intelligible. "The
Police did not know who the robber was, but they found nothing of value when
they entered the house." Years ago, in the first issue of Ms Mag, Gloria
Steinem suggested that we use the neologism "tey ... ter" as singular
gender-neutral nominative and possessive pronouns, as in "Each to ter own
taste." I sort of liked it, but it never caught on... even in Ms Mag.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Greg Sonnenfeld
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] datum vs. data

Data is now accepted as a mass noun by most computing organizations
including those in IEEE. I remember having a long debate about this at Ames
in regards to a publication.

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great programmers
find simple solutions to complex problems. The code written by topnotch
programmers may appear obvious, once it is finished, but it is vastly more
difficult to create."

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:29 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a little psychological insight, here. Why do I so
> often screw up the subject verb agreement with the word "data"? I
> know data is plural... but "datum" is so rare ... and a bit
> pretentious ... and, unless you get down to an atomic "bit", any "datum"
is probably "data"

> if you crack it open and look inside anyway. But these are excuses.
> Are my excuses preventing me from using English properly?
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

David Eric Smith

Re: datum vs. data

Ah, Nick, each choice is buggered no matter which way one turns. That
eternal torment seems to be the crucible that makes it impossible for
language ever to rest.

The voiced-syllable-initial-th at the beginning of this, that, and the
other (_not_ "thing") is a characteristic of the function words of
English, inherited from a time when there was a bound prefix with a
vowel, which led to the voicing of the then-intervocalic-th.
Psycholinguists (such as our colleague Morten Christiansen) tell us
that children make remarkable use of such clues during the learning
process, because these allow them to make category distinctions of the
function words from mere nouns, just based on sound. The "ter"
removes the cue. I would expect Gloria not to mind any such
collateral damage.

Of course, I have been beaten into submission enough times by
linguists to know that Their Correctness is an axiom, and all views of
the world must be altered so as to lead to it (or else), but I
actually like leaving words within the systems where they did most of
their formation. Thus, if one understands that the "Coel" in
coelocanth should be said "ko-eel", then one realizes that this is a
fish named for its hollow spines, from Greek koilo, which in romance
devoiced the k to eventually become "hollow", and it is a latin C
(followed by o -hence hardened) to refer to a greek k, because
scientists use latin spellings for greek roots. Right?

If one wants true carnage, there is no better shop of horrors than
stressing. How really should one say "hydrogenase", in a language
that accents the last syllable and then trys to map forward from the
end of the word in iambs? Given that this enzyme catalyzes reactions
with "hydro-gen", which was a nice word, accenting both the water and
the making. Of course, chemists _hate_ you if you say
hy"-droh-gen-ase' with its two reduced and un-accented syllables,
since everybody knows it _has_ to be hy-drah"-gen-ase'. (And it does
feel wrong, though I persist in it anyway.)

I think this is the reason we are seeing an interesting phoneme shift
in English just now, which drives Murray crazy. This is the younger
people who say "processeez". But it is clear why. The 'cess' in
Process, though secondary, is still stressed, and it is very hard to
follow such a stressed syllable with an "ez" in which the vowel is
reduced to a neutral, and both syllables end in similar fricatives
that, to make matters worse, differ in voicing. If one makes the "ez"
into "eez", then one can de-stress "cess", to get prah"-cess-eez',
which follows the iambic pattern, separates the fricatives, and gives
one a long vowel in which to restart the voicing.

I haven't tried that explanation on Murray to see if it makes this any
less painful for him.

Eric

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Bruce Sherwood

Re: datum vs. data

I'm amused/bemused by the history of the word "atom", from the Greek
meaning not (a-) cuttable (tom, as in tomography). The 19th-century
scientists who used the word knew Greek, so for them the word itself
was presumably perceived as two components, a-tom, but the object
itself was deemed indivisible.

In the 20th century we can split the atom and even the nucleus with
ease, but few 20th-century scientists know Greek, so the word itself
is now perceived as indivisible.

As Korzybski said, "The word is not the thing."

Bruce

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: datum vs. data

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Greg Sonnenfeld wrote circa 11-08-19 10:33 AM:
> Data is now accepted as a mass noun by most computing organizations
> including those in IEEE. I remember having a long debate about this at
> Ames in regards to a publication.

Well, that might be an indirect cause for my bad behavior, I suppose. I
could say that "So many of my colleagues do it that it's only natural
that I would do it sporadically as well, even if I'm trying not to do
it." I find this is the case, for me, with both cussing and my (mostly
dormant) Texas accent. When I'm around cussers, I tend to start
cussing, too. When I go home to Texas, I tend to start talkin' like 'em.

And I _know_ this has had an impact on my lack of fluency with SI units.
It's taken me quite some time to _think_ in Celsius. And I'm way
behind on changing from miles to kilometers and pounds to kilograms. I
think I'd have to leave the country and immerse myself in SI to make any
real progress.

But I can't accept the "everyone else does it" defense of my bad
behavior. I'd have to give up huge chunks of my personality in order to
do that. So, I need another reason. Why can't I get a handle on this
problem like I can with:

o 24 hour clock,
o "What in Hell" as opposed to "What the Hell", and
o "Where are you at" as opposed to "Where are you", etc.

What makes "data" trickier than those others?

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 11-08-19 01:27 PM:
> So who is it NOT absurd to? Highschool English
> teachers? Statistics teachers who are channeling THEIR highschool English
> teachers?

It's not absurd to me. I actually think the way one uses language has a
deep impact on the audience/receiver. I'm not saying I have any
significant language skills; but any lack of those skills is no excuse
for not trying to design my language for the audience. Some audience
members may be persnickety people. And if they're anything like me, a
bad or odd "sounding" phrasing can prevent them from hearing whatever
message I'm trying to send. Granted, it's pretty petty if, say, a
peer-reviewer rejects a paper just because the language is bad. But
it's a real consideration. I can't tell you how many cool concepts I've
_finally_ understood after re-re-re-reading some technical paper written
by a non-native English speaker. It's just plain difficult to
concentrate on the message when every other sentence seems funny or off.

> I think the reason that it is still a problem relates to its having no
> plural. Flock refers to a bunch of sheep, but you can also have flocks.
> Data refers to a bunch of numbers, but we can't speak of different bunches
> of numbers as "datas".

That sounds like it's on the right track. But, again, it's indirect.
I'd be more inclined to think that it's the vagueness of the concept
that gets in the way. The meaning of "flock" (or herd or whatever) is
ambiguous, at least to me. It's an artifact of the measurement
protocol. Data is used in this vague way, too. By contrast, "dataset"
presents no such problems. There seems to be a crispness to "dataset"
that I don't get with "data". It's more concrete, has harder
boundaries, or something like that.

But it is definitely related to whether or not you can pluralize it.
The meaning of "data" is vague enough that if you had 2 datas, everyone
around you would refer to that collection of collections as "the data".
Flocks are only less vague because everyone we're likely to talk to is
a human with eyeballs. It's our eyeballs that define the flock and
allow us to say "flocks".

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: datum vs. data

> Well, that might be an indirect cause for my bad behavior, I suppose. I
> could say that "So many of my colleagues do it that it's only natural
> that I would do it sporadically as well, even if I'm trying not to do
> it."
>....
>What makes "data" trickier than those others?

Well here are somethings to consider:

1. Isn't the idea of "bad behavior" very subjective?

2. If a standard's body says is fine to use, would it still be "bad
behavior"? (As apposed to just your friends etc.)

3. There are other similar words, such as "agenda", that are treated
correctly as singular in English despite being Latin plurals.

4. When does a new but common usage become "proper English" and when
does the old usage become deprecated?

It really seems an issue of what standards body or dialect you decide
to choose as proper.

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

"Junior programmers create simple solutions to simple problems. Senior
programmers create complex solutions to complex problems. Great
programmers find simple solutions to complex problems. The code
written by topnotch programmers may appear obvious, once it is
finished, but it is vastly more difficult to create."

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:36 PM, glen e. p. ropella
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Greg Sonnenfeld wrote circa 11-08-19 10:33 AM:
>> Data is now accepted as a mass noun by most computing organizations
>> including those in IEEE. I remember having a long debate about this at
>> Ames in regards to a publication.
>
> Well, that might be an indirect cause for my bad behavior, I suppose. I
> could say that "So many of my colleagues do it that it's only natural
> that I would do it sporadically as well, even if I'm trying not to do
> it." I find this is the case, for me, with both cussing and my (mostly
> dormant) Texas accent. When I'm around cussers, I tend to start
> cussing, too. When I go home to Texas, I tend to start talkin' like 'em.
>
> And I _know_ this has had an impact on my lack of fluency with SI units.
> It's taken me quite some time to _think_ in Celsius. And I'm way
> behind on changing from miles to kilometers and pounds to kilograms. I
> think I'd have to leave the country and immerse myself in SI to make any
> real progress.
>
> But I can't accept the "everyone else does it" defense of my bad
> behavior. I'd have to give up huge chunks of my personality in order to
> do that. So, I need another reason. Why can't I get a handle on this
> problem like I can with:
>
> o 24 hour clock,
> o "What in Hell" as opposed to "What the Hell", and
> o "Where are you at" as opposed to "Where are you", etc.
>
> What makes "data" trickier than those others?
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 11-08-19 01:27 PM:
>> So who is it NOT absurd to? Highschool English
>> teachers? Statistics teachers who are channeling THEIR highschool English
>> teachers?
>
> It's not absurd to me. I actually think the way one uses language has a
> deep impact on the audience/receiver. I'm not saying I have any
> significant language skills; but any lack of those skills is no excuse
> for not trying to design my language for the audience. Some audience
> members may be persnickety people. And if they're anything like me, a
> bad or odd "sounding" phrasing can prevent them from hearing whatever
> message I'm trying to send. Granted, it's pretty petty if, say, a
> peer-reviewer rejects a paper just because the language is bad. But
> it's a real consideration. I can't tell you how many cool concepts I've
> _finally_ understood after re-re-re-reading some technical paper written
> by a non-native English speaker. It's just plain difficult to
> concentrate on the message when every other sentence seems funny or off.
>
>> I think the reason that it is still a problem relates to its having no
>> plural. Flock refers to a bunch of sheep, but you can also have flocks.
>> Data refers to a bunch of numbers, but we can't speak of different bunches
>> of numbers as "datas".
>
> That sounds like it's on the right track. But, again, it's indirect.
> I'd be more inclined to think that it's the vagueness of the concept
> that gets in the way. The meaning of "flock" (or herd or whatever) is
> ambiguous, at least to me. It's an artifact of the measurement
> protocol. Data is used in this vague way, too. By contrast, "dataset"
> presents no such problems. There seems to be a crispness to "dataset"
> that I don't get with "data". It's more concrete, has harder
> boundaries, or something like that.
>
> But it is definitely related to whether or not you can pluralize it.
> The meaning of "data" is vague enough that if you had 2 datas, everyone
> around you would refer to that collection of collections as "the data".
> Flocks are only less vague because everyone we're likely to talk to is
> a human with eyeballs. It's our eyeballs that define the flock and
> allow us to say "flocks".
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Eric Charles

Re: datum vs. data

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Glen,
I have this problem too, but before your post had not thought about how localized a problem it is. Having thought about this for a few days, I have a hypothesis you might find more satisfying: The reason you often use 'data' as a singular noun is because you are often referring to (or thinking about) something singular when you talk about 'data.'

For example, when I ask someone to 'send me their data', what I am really asking them to do is to send me 'a file' that contains their many datums. Asking for 'the data' is a short hand for asking for 'the file containing the data.' As such, I might not flinch if the email reply contains the text 'Here is the data' - they are using the same shorthand, and mean 'Here is a file containing the data.'

Or we can imagine an assistant making a physical data hand off:
"Here it is."
~"Here what is?"
"The data."
~"Ah, you mean, 'Here THEY ARE.' "
<confused look> "Was there supposed to be more than one?"
~"Well, data is plural, I would hope there is more than one."
<worried look> "Well, I'm sorry, but they only gave me one folder when I went to pick it up."
~"Of course, there was only one folder I wanted."
<getting concerned the professor might be crazy> "And... here it is?"
~"You mean, 'Here they are.' "
"If you say so... have a nice day."

Plausible?

Eric

P.S. I thought of this when it occurred to me that the 'data' problem might relate to the 'faculty' problem. There is some long-running fuss about whether it is acceptable to say that "The college faculty are displeased," or if one must write out "The members of the faculty of the college are displeased," or if one can treat 'the faculty' as a singluar entity and say "The college faculty is displeased."

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 08:36 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Greg Sonnenfeld wrote circa 11-08-19 10:33 AM:
> Data is now accepted as a mass noun by most computing organizations
> including those in IEEE. I remember having a long debate about this at
> Ames in regards to a publication.

Well, that might be an indirect cause for my bad behavior, I suppose.  I
could say that "So many of my colleagues do it that it's only natural
that I would do it sporadically as well, even if I'm trying not to do
it."  I find this is the case, for me, with both cussing and my
(mostly
dormant) Texas accent.  When I'm around cussers, I tend to start
cussing, too.  When I go home to Texas, I tend to start talkin' like 'em.

And I _know_ this has had an impact on my lack of fluency with SI units.
 It's taken me quite some time to _think_ in Celsius.  And I'm way
behind on changing from miles to kilometers and pounds to kilograms.  I
think I'd have to leave the country and immerse myself in SI to make any
real progress.

But I can't accept the "everyone else does it" defense of my bad
behavior.  I'd have to give up huge chunks of my personality in order to
do that.  So, I need another reason.  Why can't I get a handle on this
problem like I can with:

   o 24 hour clock,
   o "What in Hell" as opposed to "What the Hell", and
   o "Where are you at" as opposed to "Where are you", etc.

What makes "data" trickier than those others?


Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 11-08-19 01:27 PM:
> So who is it NOT absurd to?  Highschool English
> teachers?  Statistics teachers who are channeling THEIR highschool English
> teachers?

It's not absurd to me.  I actually think the way one uses language has a
deep impact on the audience/receiver.  I'm not saying I have any
significant language skills; but any lack of those skills is no excuse
for not trying to design my language for the audience.  Some audience
members may be persnickety people.  And if they're anything like me, a
bad or odd "sounding" phrasing can prevent them from hearing whatever
message I'm trying to send.  Granted, it's pretty petty if, say, a
peer-reviewer rejects a paper just because the language is bad.  But
it's a real consideration.  I can't tell you how many cool concepts I've
_finally_ understood after re-re-re-reading some technical paper written
by a non-native English speaker.  It's just plain difficult to
concentrate on the message when every other sentence seems funny or off.

> I think the reason that it is still a problem relates to its having no
> plural.  Flock refers to a bunch of sheep, but you can also have flocks.
> Data refers to a bunch of numbers, but we can't speak of different bunches
> of numbers as "datas".  

That sounds like it's on the right track.  But, again, it's indirect.
I'd be more inclined to think that it's the vagueness of the concept
that gets in the way.  The meaning of "flock" (or herd or
whatever) is
ambiguous, at least to me.  It's an artifact of the measurement
protocol.  Data is used in this vague way, too.  By contrast,
"dataset"
presents no such problems.  There seems to be a crispness to "dataset"
that I don't get with "data".  It's more concrete, has harder
boundaries, or something like that.

But it is definitely related to whether or not you can pluralize it.
The meaning of "data" is vague enough that if you had 2 datas,
everyone
around you would refer to that collection of collections as "the
data".
 Flocks are only less vague because everyone we're likely to talk to is
a human with eyeballs.  It's our eyeballs that define the flock and
allow us to say "flocks".

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Robert Holmes

Re: datum vs. data

The subject is discussed in depth here: http://purl.org/nxg/note/singular-data

The conclusion? "The data is in: it is massive, and it is singular."

—R

glen ep ropella

Re: datum vs. data

In reply to this post by Greg Sonnenfeld

Greg Sonnenfeld wrote circa 11-08-20 06:27 PM:
> It really seems an issue of what standards body or dialect you decide
> to choose as proper.

To some extent. Unfortunately, I've ended up believing that we are
defined by our environment. Of course, there's (at least) a transience
to the effect of any cause. The genes we're born with have a very long
transient. [grin] But because I believe we're defined by our
environment and in order to limit my cognitive dissonance, I can only
adopt standards contingently. And that means if I find myself amongst
those who think the word "data" is the plural of "datum", then I have to
be _capable_ of adopting it. I don't seem to be capable of that.

A more general (and professional) angle is the ability to adopt a set of
premises (or even a formal system like ZFC) at least for the sake of
argument. I've found one of the best rhetorical tactics is to adopt
your opponent's rhetoric and try to work within it for awhile. That
helps persuade the opponent when/if flaws are found. It's professional
for me because that's what we do when we construct simulations, albeit
the game isn't necessarily zero-sum or dialectical.

But the ability to put on and take off hats at will is important in lots
of contexts, including using language. So, I laud the standards guys
and the effort put into resolving the issue down to an Ultimate, Godly,
One True Path. But I can't simply adopt that and be done with it if I
want to swim in various waters.

> Well here are somethings to consider:
>
> 1. Isn't the idea of "bad behavior" very subjective?

Not generally. I regard it as cultural, or perhaps even rational. Bad
behavior is defined by the context. In some specific cases, part of the
context is the observer or the subject.

> 2. If a standard's body says is fine to use, would it still be "bad
> behavior"? (As apposed to just your friends etc.)

In the contexts where that standard is uncommon or ill-favored, yes.
And in some cases, _all_ standards are considered suspect ... though
such places don't tolerate verbal communication very well; so perhaps
that's moot. 8^)

> 3. There are other similar words, such as "agenda", that are treated
> correctly as singular in English despite being Latin plurals.

Yes and that's good parallax. Once inside enemy territory, we can use
that to crack their foundations.

> 4. When does a new but common usage become "proper English" and when
> does the old usage become deprecated?

It depends entirely on the context.

Thanks _very_ much for the thought-food! I think it's helping.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcos

Re: datum vs. data

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, glen e. p. ropella
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> To some extent. Unfortunately, I've ended up believing that we are
> defined by our environment. Of course, there's (at least) a transience
> to the effect of any cause. The genes we're born with have a very long
> transient. [grin] But because I believe we're defined by our
> environment and in order to limit my cognitive dissonance, I can only
> adopt standards contingently. And that means if I find myself amongst
> those who think the word "data" is the plural of "datum", then I have to
> be _capable_ of adopting it. I don't seem to be capable of that.

Hypothesis: you are Greek in ancestry and the old disagreement with
the Romans at Sparta is making your biology *refuse* the adoption of
Roman linguistic conventions.

marcos
sfcomplex.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: datum vs. data

Marcos wrote circa 11-08-22 08:16 PM:
> Hypothesis: you are Greek in ancestry and the old disagreement with
> the Romans at Sparta is making your biology *refuse* the adoption of
> Roman linguistic conventions.

Ha! Yes! That must be it.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcos

Re: datum vs. data

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:53 AM, glen e. p. ropella
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hypothesis: you are Greek in ancestry and the old disagreement with
>> the Romans at Sparta is making your biology *refuse* the adoption of
>> Roman linguistic conventions.
>
> Ha! Yes! That must be it.

It sounds funny, but I've actually found that irrational
idiosyncrasies can be traced back to genetics; i.e. ancestral history.
So are you Greek or not..... :) ?

marcos

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: datum vs. data

Marcos wrote circa 11-08-23 06:48 PM:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:53 AM, glen e. p. ropella
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hypothesis: you are Greek in ancestry and the old disagreement with
>>> the Romans at Sparta is making your biology *refuse* the adoption of
>>> Roman linguistic conventions.
>>
>> Ha! Yes! That must be it.
>
> It sounds funny, but I've actually found that irrational
> idiosyncrasies can be traced back to genetics; i.e. ancestral history.
> So are you Greek or not..... :) ?

Seriously? What types of genetically caused idiosyncrasies have you found.

In any case, I was adopted; so I don't know for sure. The nuns told my
parents that I was of Scotch-Irish & German heritage. So, the answer's
probably no. But you never know! Of course, some Celts and Teutons
resisted the Romans with significant enthusiasm.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcos

Re: datum vs. data

> Seriously? What types of genetically caused idiosyncrasies have you found.

Sorry, I guess I'm being a little sloppy. But informally, (what did
Sherlock Holmes say: "If you eliminate all the impossibilities,
whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the truth."), you've
seemed to eliminated all the personal Glen-as-memeplex set of
possibilities. The only thing that remains then is genetics, yes?

marcos

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: datum vs. data

Marcos wrote circa 11-08-24 01:12 PM:
> you've
> seemed to eliminated all the personal Glen-as-memeplex set of
> possibilities. The only thing that remains then is genetics, yes?

Well, "eliminated" is a strong word. ;-) I have 3 good suggestions: 1)
Greg's "it's adopted by standards groups", which I interpret as "many
people much smarter than me[*] think it's right to use data as a
singular. 2) Greg's, Nick's, and Robert's "it's a non-count noun",
which I interpret to mean there is no natural bottom-turtle (e.g. "hints
of cinnamon"), no indivisible atomic unit at the bottom. And 3) Eric's
delivery format argument, since the usual packaging of data comes in
units of one (one zip file, one folder, one experimental context -- e.g.
"the tree ring data"). All three will provide tools by which I can
assign one of my reflective homunculi(!) to take data when the contexts
arise.

* In this audience, I suspect "smarter than me" is less of an obstacle
to language flow than "smarter than I". ;-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org