RSS .92
Atom .03
Interesting criticism:
In these days of academic snobbery, one hears words like "rhinoceri" and "quora" used as plurals for "rhinoceros" and "quorum". It sounds intellectual to say "quotae" when speaking of the plural of "quota", instead of saying "quotas" like the commoners.
Unfortunately these terms expose their users as ignoramuses. (No, the plural is not ignorami - ignoramus is an English noun, not a Latin noun. As a Latin verb, it is already in the plural). They wouldn't be heard dead using the correct singular terms for one item in a collection of erotica, or one statement in a list of trivia. Yet, for "quorum" and "quota", neither of which is a Latin noun, and for "rhinoceros", the Latin plural of which is "rhinocerotes", they make up non-existent plural words to sound smart.
One common pseudointellectualism is the incorrect use of the word "data" as the (correct if we insist on letting the Latin origins of words define our speech) plural for the word "datum". People indiscriminately use plural verbs in association with the word "data" without taking into account the entire grammatical construct.
Assume, for a moment, that data is indeed to be used as a plural.
"Few data" is a plural construct referring to numerical quantity, like "few sheep". It therefore requires a plural verb. As in: "There are few data on hens' teeth." "How many data are there on hens' teeth?" "There are few data." "Precisely how many data are there?" "There are three data." "Please explain." "There are two measurements of the length of hens' teeth and one preserved tooth in a museum."
"Little data" is a singular construct referring to non-numerical quantity, like "little wool", even though the word "data" remains plural. It therefore requires a singular verb. As in: "There is little data on hens' teeth." "How much data is there?" "There is only very little data." "Precisely how much data is there?" "There are no publications and limited anecdotal evidence of sightings."
In the singular form of the phrase, the word "data" can be replaced with the word "information" and mean almost the same thing. (Information, however, refers to a concept derived from data, and encompasses the plurality of the countable or numerical data gathered into a non-numerical concept, but that is beside the point).
"There are little data" is incorrect except in the case of "There are little data on the graph. They are small, only 5 mm in diameter."
"There is few data" is incorrect except in the case of "There is Few Data. He has a strange name."
Similarly:
"Many data" is a plural construct referring to numerical quantity.
"Much data" is a singular construct referring to non-numerical quantity.
Statements like "There is/are lots of data", by their nature, can take a singular or plural verb - "There are lots of data" has "data" as a plural numerical quantity (cf. "There are lots of sheep"), and "There is lots of data" has it as a singular non-numerical quantity (cf. "There is lots of wool").
And similarly, statements like "There is/are a lot of data" can take a singular or plural verb - "There are a lot of data" has "data" as a plural numerical quantity (cf. "There are a lot of sheep"), and "There is a lot of data" has it as a singular non-numerical quantity (cf. "There is a lot of wool").
If the scientific community wants to use "data" as a plural, it should use "data" correctly as a plural. Otherwise they are simply uneducated.
However, "data" is not necessarily plural. It is accepted in English as being both plural and singular, and can correctly be used either way.
Since the word "data" is accepted as both singular and plural in English, there is no need for pretentious hypercorrectness. Pedantry amongst intellectuals only betrays their insecurity and lack of learning.