When talking about data, do we "store it" or "store them"?

Hi,
I have always referred to data as “it” although it is the plural of “datum”.

I would never refer to data as “them”. But I would use “them” when referring to “data points”. Is this correct?
I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich

“Data” as it is typically currently used is a mass noun, which are treated as singular. “Data” is also the plural of “datum”, which would make it plural, but “datum” is very rarely used these days, which makes the use of data as plural seem kind of pedantic.

“Data points” is always plural.

Yeah this is one the pedants have lost. Data is technically the plural of datum. But nowadays it is used pretty much universally (in computer related subjects at least) as a mass noun in it’s own right. So referred to as “it” not “them”

There are at least a large minority of physicists who routinely treat “data” as a plural noun. Though this does not necessarily conflict with “only pedants”.

I also frequently use “data” as a plural noun. This is also not a contradiction. :slight_smile:

Biologists, and I assume most other scientists, routinely still use data as a plural noun. However, in the particular usage in the OP, “store it” would sound more natural.

Yes, it’s a bit of an elitist status thing in academic writing to use “data” as a plural noun. You pretty much never see it outside of published journal/conference papers, but I know a ton of people who are coached specifically by their advisors to use it as a plural instead of a mass noun in papers that are going to be sent off for peer review.

In English, “data” is treated as singular. In Latin, it is not. So the question is whether you are speaking English or Latin.

Anyone who says the correct English form is plural has an agenda.

Or, as they would argue “an agendum.” If you argue “data” is plural, then you have to agree that “agenda” is plural, since it follows the exact same rule.

Though I do recall a couple of funny CS papers where “data” was used as a mass noun when talking about computer data, but used a plural when talking about the data gathered during their experiment (the data about what the computer does with the data). It was perfectly consistent within this framework, but still weird.

Yeah, any rear-guard action against “data” as a singular form is completely overwhelmed at this point. I’m not enough of a die-hard prescriptivist to even question it.

Wow. I’ve NEVER heard that word before. I was going to ask for an example in a sentence, but I figured I could just google the word. Not! The first 7 hits were to various dictionaries. Hit #8 was the name of a company, sounds Dutch. Hit #9 was the name of a company, looks Italian. Finally, Hit #10 was “Use it in a sentence”, and the sentence it gave was:Quid vero agendum est homini\ cui lupus abstulit vires clamandi, qui vero non habet potestatem vocife\randi, perdit auxilium longe stantis.

Not really the same rule. An “agendum” is an action, whereas even a single agenda is a collection of actions. If “a data” had come to mean what “a data set” means, it would be more analogous.

[QUOTE=Jragon]
Though I do recall a couple of funny CS papers where “data” was used as a mass noun when talking about computer data, but used a plural when talking about the data gathered during their experiment (the data about what the computer does with the data). It was perfectly consistent within this framework, but still weird.
[/QUOTE]

It is arguable that the word “data” as used in computing does mean something different from the same word when used in science. The former is treating it more as an unstructured blob which can be manipulated without interpreting it, whereas the latter refers to a much more structured and uniform collection of information.

With something like a time series of readings from an instrument, one can imagine picking out a single “datum” to comment on. When referring to the contents of a chunk of RAM or a hard drive sector, not so much.

On the other side of the coin, Sports clubs, which are a single entity, are usually thought of in the plural. You don’t call your team ‘it’, you call them ‘they’ (well most people do).

Sports clubs are weird. In American dialect, you can say “The Browns are playing the Packers”, but you can also refer to the exact same two groups of athletes by saying “Cleveland is playing Green Bay”.

I think that British dialects deal with this differently, but I don’t recall the details.

The thing is, it’s not a case of the common parlance being sloppier but, hey, too late now, too many people speak that way.

There’s almost never a time when we’d refer to a single datum. And I’m saying that as a computer scientist. It makes much more sense for it to be a mass noun.

It would be as daft as if a single molecule of gold was “one gold” and then the rest of the time we had to refer to “the golds”.

:slight_smile:

Actually pretty common, but we usually say “data point” for the singular.

Many people just handle sports teams by whether they SOUND plural or not. “The Browns are …” but it might be “The Heat is …” instead of “The Heat are”. You will find both. Of course when we used to name teams for people or animals, or occasionally inanimate objects, rather than concepts like “heat”, this didn’t come up.

Yes. In addition to the mass noun classification, it harks back to classical Greek win which a neuter plural noun takes a singular verb.

And then there’s the Stanford Cardinal, which seems to trip up most people because they don’t realize it refers to the color, not the bird.

That’s only odd in American English, since in British English, even a “single entity” like a company is treated as plural. When I was doing business in the UK, I always had trouble with phrases like: “IBM are…”