Sorry, Chips, it's just that the singularisation of 'data' is one of my pet peeves. You happened to singularise it

Cold Void, what part of "searched for" was not clear? I confess I didn't have the time or inclination to trawl through the pages of results for fireworks and bicycles and there didn't seem to be any relevant results when I typed both in at once. Please give me enough credit to recognise that I know the front page of the site is not going to have what I want.

I can only guess you're saying I should have typed out "data are" instead, but I guess I'll just have to take satisfaction in annoying you alot instead

At least data is one of those things that can be singular as well as plural, unless you are talking about Data, and he is still single, at the moment.

---

At least data is one of those things that can be singular as well as plural

---

Final, would you at any point say "a data"? No, you always say "some data". Data is plural, there is no way around it. It is not a collective noun.

It all depends on how your typeing, it can be many things.

For clarification, chips had said

---

the data

---

which can be looked at as singular. ie- The page was scaned in, and the type was determined to be black ink. Then I could say, the data proves it was a black ink cartrige in the printer. That would be one item, there fore a singular piece of data. It does not take into acount a miss typed wording.

Edited by - Finalday on 5/29/2006 7:31:07 AM

Ok, Final, you want to play hardball, eh?

Chips did indeed say "the data", he then followed with "is". "is" is the singular form of the present tense of the verb "to be". Hence he is treating the noun as singular.

As for what you said:
"therefore a singular piece of data"
I'm not sure what you hope to prove with that. "data" is in the genitive, thus is not referred to by "a". Said indefinite article is in fact attached to the noun "piece".

Oh, and this:
"the data proves it"
This is just wrong. It is completely and totally grammatically wrong, there is no way around this fact.

Trust me on this, Final, "data" is a plural noun. If you want the singular, that is "datum". It comes from Latin, after all and literally means "things which have been given".

EDIT: That is what you were thinking about, right?

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 5/29/2006 8:56:55 AM

As another Washintonian, I feel compelled to weigh in on this a bit.

In many cases, the idea of 'liberty' is often misinterpreted as a blank check to do whatever (I'm not saying that I see that here, though I do see it in real life far too often) you want without recourse. Even the most 'free' societies have laws. It is a necessity. The 'right to free speech' is likely the most abused of all in this country.

As far as fireworks go, I live less than ten miles away from the Indian (and its my right to free speech to not use the 'politically correct' term here) reservation responsible for selling what I believe to be (no statistics here, sorry) the largest amount of fireworks yearly in Washington State. The Interstate backs up for miles and miles outside of "Boom City" (and the accompanying casinos) for the month preceding the Fourth of July. While I don't personally know anyone who's been injured by fireworks, I've seen some very foolish actions in my time, enough to know that there are some who cannot be trusted with fireworks. I would not be opposed to an age-limit provision. But of course, wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.

For more clarification, from the Oxford University press dictionary

---

data >noun 1 facts and statistics used for reference or analysis. 2 the quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer.
-USAGE Traditionally and in technical use data is treated as a plural, as in Latin it is the plural of datum. In modern non-scientific use, however, it is often treated as a singular, and sentences such as data was collected over a number of years are now acceptable.
-ORIGIN Latin, plural of datum.

---

I rest my case.

---

it is often treated as a singular

---

Precisely. It is often treated as singular. It offers absolutely no judgement on its correctness, because the surrounding context implies it.

J Dawg, i vehemently disagree about free speech being abused - i was rather surprised when nearly every channel refused to rebroadcast those danish cartoons.

---

In many cases, the idea of 'liberty' is often misinterpreted as a blank check to do whatever (I'm not saying that I see that here, though I do see it in real life far too often) you want without recourse. Even the most 'free' societies have laws. It is a necessity. The 'right to free speech' is likely the most abused of all in this country.

---

a classic fallacy, that free societies have laws to curb rights - a just law is designed to protect rights where it is constitutionally within the governments power, and to punish the abuse of other's rights.(maybe it sounds like semantics, but to me its the difference between the movies Minority Report and 12 Angry Men)

examples; assault and murder is an infringement on the right to life. theft and fraud, to property. discrimination, the pursuit of happiness. intimidation, free speech and happiness - etc etc etc. this would be a good time to mention that i'm a 'little L' libertarian and i don't believe in victimless crime (no victim = no crime).

and..there is an age limit and vendors are responsible for verifying the purchaser's age. the difficulty comes when ma and pa are on their 3rd beer each and hand out a bunch of fireworks and lighters for their kids to play with. of course, driving those people onto the reservation to get fireworks is probably the worst thing you could do, since they can and do sell actual firecrackers that can amputate little hands and fingers and they can waive age restrictions if they wish.

if anybody should be held ultimately responsible for the domestic welfare(ie not related to external factors like crime, war, famine, pestilence, etc) of children, its the parents - not the state or constitution.

Edited by - Cold_Void on 5/29/2006 11:06:52 AM

---

i was rather surprised when nearly every channel refused to rebroadcast those danish cartoons

---

So was I. Everyone said they were "lampooning the prophet Mohammed". Except they weren't. ALL of them, bar none, were lampooning the practice of using Islam as an excuse to commit acts of terrorism. But that's beside the point...

---

a classic fallacy, that free societies have laws to curb rights - a just law is designed to protect rights where it is constitutionally within the governments power

---

It depends entirely on your perspective. You argue that losing the freedom to set off explosives with gay abandon does not justify the millions of pounds of property damage and injuries that are prevented - protecting the rights of people to live and own property.

---

examples; assault and murder is an infringement on the right to life

---

But hitting someone accidently with a firework and killing or injuring them does not infringe on their right to life? Manslaughter is also a crime, as is GBH.

---

if anybody should be held ultimately responsible for the domestic welfare(ie not related to external factors like crime, war, famine, pestilence, etc) of children, its the parents - not the state or constitution.

---

You are absolutely right about this, but it is human nature that we need laws etc. to regulate 'freedoms'. If everyone could exist and behave properly, then we wouldn't need a legal system, only philosophers. Sadly, we have to have laws restricting our actions because the minority of criminals and idiots must have some sort of recourse for their actions.

Edited by - The Evil Thing on 5/29/2006 12:32:26 PM

@ TET- Thanks for that post. I was struggling earlier this morning to find the words to say what I wanted to clearly. You've managed to fill in the blanks well.

@Cold_Void- I didn't say (or at least didn't intend to say) that "Societies have laws to curb rights". Like TET says, it depends on your perspective.

One 'right' that many people believe in, that certainly does not exist is the "right to not be offended." It is in this case that the right to free speech is abused i.e. I state my overt bigoted opinion on (insert some controversial subject here), and some observing party is offended by my remarks. It is often claimed that me exercising my right to free speech is infringing their right to free speech (which of course is not the case, but many take it as such). In reality, anyone can say whatever the wish, but many do not realize that they're not required to believe it.

Wow. I hope that made sense.

@ J Dog.

I feel you're right. To a point.

For example, I can say : "All Gays are stupid. Its my opinion. I can say it. You don't have to listen if you dont want to hear it." And I would be right, I can say it if I want. But what would the point be? How would my insulting you (NOT you personally) help me? It just makes me sound like a bigoted (and not so bright) ****. Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean you have to say it. If someone was going to come flame me for being a conservative Christian, they would be violating my rights, but it's all attitude. If someone was to calmly discuss why their way is more enlightend, ect. then it would be within their rights, despite my opinion.

TET - so should I have said "data are" then? English was very poorly taught at my schools, I learnt about nouns and verbs etc were through my French teacher instead. English always appeared to be a complete waste of time whilst going through school, we were never really taught about structure or grammar etc.

@Cold:
So since fireworks are available on reservations, then the legislation should be dropped as pointless?

I guess you'll be able to check statistics in the next few years to see whether the above will have had an impact or not.