Time is right to treat 'data' as singular

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Tada!

What's with the "tada", like she agrees with you?

Capitalized, she's clearly talking about Data, the android character in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Originally posted by DrKF
I'm from the UK, and I honestly don't know what you think is weird about that sentence!

It figures.

Unilever is a corporation, is it not? And just ONE corporation, right? Follow me?

Correct is: "It seems that Unilever has come up with a unique solution."

Or: "It seems that the folks at Unilever have come up with a unique solution."

See the difference?

Originally posted by Suzianne
It figures.

Unilever is a corporation, is it not? And just ONE corporation, right? Follow me?

Correct is: "It seems that Unilever [b]has come up with a unique solution."

Or: "It seems that the folks at Unilever have come up with a unique solution."

See the difference?[/b]

Ah, I see now. Thanks.

This whole topic seems to make you really angry. Which is weird.

Originally posted by DrKF
Ah, I see now. Thanks.

This whole topic seems to make you really angry. Which is weird.

No, it's the gits who think Americans are somehow less intelligent (or sloppy) for speaking and writing English correctly that make me angry.

That and the fact that there's a lot of them here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
As the addition of the superfluous S jars with me. (Much like adding a superfluous U to color.)

When you abbreviate, you break the rest of the word off, you don't go back in and add in the S for no reason, especially when talking about a singlular.

And for you neanderthals who think mathematics is plural, then what the heck is a mathematic?

Mathem ...[text shortened]... e would assume you were using a possessive or misusing a plural if you wrote it that way.

No, I'm afraid mathematics is a 'mass noun', of course you would know this, and the meaning of, as I'm the mere Neanderthal for asking which sub group of noun it belonged to...as regard the sole reference to the 'superfluous,' you're mistaking the obvious goal as to 'simplify,' something to which Franklin strived.

Originally posted by Suzianne
As the addition of the superfluous S jars with me. (Much like adding a superfluous U to color.)

When you abbreviate, you break the rest of the word off, you don't go back in and add in the S for no reason, especially when talking about a singlular.

And for you neanderthals who think mathematics is plural, then what the heck is a mathematic?

Mathem ...[text shortened]... e would assume you were using a possessive or misusing a plural if you wrote it that way.

LOL.

Quote: "Much like adding a superfluous U to color."

I was once giving a talk at my company and got into an exchange with a Brit where I eventually said, "That's right, your gallons differ from ours."

His reply? "Actually, YOUR gallons differ from OURS."

Originally posted by DrKF
I'm from the UK, and I honestly don't know what you think is weird about that sentence!

There's nothing "wrong" with "Unilever have...." It's just jarring to those unaccustomed. I'm used to it, now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
As the addition of the superfluous S jars with me. (Much like adding a superfluous U to color.)

*sigh*

Neither of those is added. You (specifically, that revisionist Webster) removed them, and that for political, not for linguistic reasons.

At least get your facts right.

Richard

Originally posted by Suzianne
Unilever is a corporation, is it not? And just ONE corporation, right? Follow me?

Correct is: "It seems that Unilever [b]has come up with a unique solution."

Or: "It seems that the folks at Unilever have come up with a unique solution."[/b]

Yes, I follow you, but you're only very partially correct in this case.

The important realisation - and one which, I do realise, goes counter to your country's cultural mindset - is that that one corporation, any corporation, is still made up of people. A corporation is an entity, but it is not, never, an entity in its own right. Each corporation exists in the people who make up that corporation, and in that corporation, it does nothing, while those people who constitute it do everything which the corporation is said to do.
That said, outwardly a corporation often acts as one. Therefore, your first sentence is not wrong, in those cases in which the accent is on the behaviour of the entire corporation in the business world. But you have to understand that "Unilever have" is just as correct, when the accent is on the involvement its employers have in the corporation's dealings.
By the way, this is not just a matter of linguistics or of mere cultural differences. This distancing of the individual employees from their responsibility, however great or small according to their status, in their corporation's behaviour and ethics, is a not unimportant part of not just the recent banking crisis, but even more importantly, of their continuing unethical behaviour afterwards.

By the way, calling people "folks" in a business context makes one sound... hominy-grittish. Not good for being taken seriously in the real world.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
*sigh*

Neither of those is added. You (specifically, that revisionist Webster) removed them, and that for political, not for linguistic reasons.

At least get your facts right.

Richard

At least I can sort of understand the U, coming as it does from the French.

The S in maths, not so much. Please explain to me the etymology of the S. I see no reason for it, myself.

Originally posted by Suzianne
At least I can sort of understand the U, coming as it does from the French.

The S in maths, not so much. Please explain to me the etymology of the S. I see no reason for it, myself.

You do say mathematics and physics, don't you? The 's' is a grammatical ending, and those don't disappear when you abbreviate a word. If you talk about more than one PC, you aren't talking about several PC, but several PCs. The fact the singular form of "mathematics" isn't used doesn't change the fact that the 's' is an ending.

Originally posted by Nordlys
You do say mathematics and physics, don't you? The 's' is a grammatical ending, and those don't disappear when you abbreviate a word. If you talk about more than one PC, you aren't talking about several PC, but several PCs. The fact the singular form of "mathematics" isn't used doesn't change the fact that the 's' is an ending.

Can you give me just one more example of a word that is abbreviated in this way?

In what way is the S an "ending"? It doesn't denote a plural.

I was under the impression that abbreviations just chop off the rest of the word, so-called "endings" aren't kept. What other "endings" are kept when abbreviated? Plurals, maybe, I can't think of any others.

Mathematic and mathematics aren't the same thing at all, neither are physic and physics. Would the S therefore mainly be used to specify the difference? Seems sketchy to me. The apparent lack of other examples is what lowers the credibility of this for me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can you give me just one more example of a word that is abbreviated in this way?

In what way is the S an "ending"? It doesn't denote a plural.

I was under the impression that abbreviations just chop off the rest of the word, so-called "endings" aren't kept. What other "endings" are kept when abbreviated? Plurals, maybe, I can't think of any others. ...[text shortened]... e. The apparent lack of other examples is what lowers the credibility of this for me.

It is a plural form, whether you like it or not. Maybe this can convince you? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ics

The genitive ending ('s) is treated the same way. You can't chop off grammatically important parts of the word.

If "mathematic" and "mathematics" aren't the same thing at all, that's just more reason to say "maths" so that it won't be mistaken for "mathematic".

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, it's the gits who think Americans are somehow less intelligent (or sloppy) for speaking and writing English correctly that make me angry.

That and the fact that there's a [b]lot of them here.[/b]

Do you mean Nordlys and Shallow Blue? They both seem to have a very good understanding of our common language.Better than mine and,it seems, yours.And,I assume,English is their second language.

Originally posted by biffo konker
Do you mean Nordlys and Shallow Blue? They both seem to have a very good understanding of our common language.Better than mine and,it seems, yours.And,I assume,English is their second language.

It is mine. Well, third, really - or fourth - you can't spend a lot of time in the Northeast of the Netherlands without picking up a smattering of both Nether-Saxon and German by osmosis. But English is the first language after Dutch which I started really learning, rather than acquiring from the environment.
And yeah, I'm reasonably good at it - that's what being an Anglophone who reads a lot of English literature and watches Auntie in preference over his home telly channels and a computer programmer whose professional literature is all in that language does to you. It's more inevitable than an achievement. But one advantage we furriners have is that we have had the rules drilled into us, hard, apparently more so than some native speakers.

Richard