Yeah, I go back-and-forth between dat (rhymes with “cat”)-uh and day-tuh. I don’t think I’ve ever heard “dah-tuh.” And I’m fine with using singular verbs with “data.”
I do, but my inner Grammar Nazi knows it’s wrong.
I honestly don’t find it wrong. Just because “data” is the plural of “datum” in Latin doesn’t means it need be in English (and, if you wanna get funny, in some specialized cases “datums” is the plural of “datum” in English.) Data, I’d argue, is parsed as a singular noun by many/most speakers in English to refer to something like “dataset” or “collection of information” rather than being the plural form of individual bits of information, hence our tendency to want to use the singular verb form with it. As the Merriam-Webster usage note states (linked to previously):
Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum , of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings ), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (such as these, many, a few ) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (such as they, them ); and as an abstract mass noun (like information ), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (such as this, much, little ), and being referred to by a singular pronoun ( it ). Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.
Note the “both constructions are standard.” The Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press Stylebook, The Washington Post Stylebook, etc., all allow both plural and singular verbs to follow “data,” depending on context. I believe APA sticks to the plural form (which is more common in scientific or academic contexts.) So don’t feel guilty for saying “the data looks great!” It’s accepted by the major style guides.
Does your pronunciation of “beneficiary” have 4 or 5 syllables?
Six (gasp) 
Sorry, I meant five or six syllables.
Oh, here’s some that are fun…
Lidl (the retail chain)
Nutella (the chocolate spread)
Chupa Chups (sugar on a stick)
I am often corrected by people who say these are ‘leedl’, ‘nootella’ and ‘choopa choops’ respectively, however, all three of those companies have official TV adverts in the UK where they have apparently accepted a UK-normalised pronunciation of their brand names (in the case of Lidl, they ran with it because ‘the middle of Lidl’ rhymes, and is an interesting name for their housewares section, and because their tagline ‘big on [quality/brands/cuisine/etc], Lidl on prices’ sounds like ‘little on prices’
Wow. That UK pronunciation of “Nutella” really grates on me. I mean, it makes sense, I’ve just never heard it as anything but noo-tella here to American ears. “Lidl” I’ve always said as “Leedl” as I’ve only encountered it living near the Germanic countries. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it in the US, so I have no idea how they say it here. Same with Chupa Chups. I would probably have said “Choopa Chuhps” if I ever came across them, but at least now I know how it’s intended and how the UKers say it.
ETA: Hmmm… I have a feeling I have seen the Chupa Chups lollipops at the grocery store at the checkout, now. The pictures look familiar. I guess I never bothered to actually see what they were called.
I think it’s probably the same as ‘Legos’ (although not strictly a pronunciation thing). It really grates on me, and makes no sense to me, and I want to correct it.
How is “Ikea” pronounced over there? I’m just curious, because we pronounce it “eye-KEY-uh” over here, but I have a British friend from Cambridge, UK, who pronounces it as “icky-uh” (or thereabouts.) He’s lived in Hungary since the 90s, though, and that’s when Ikea came into prominence over there, so I suspect his English pronunciation may be influenced by the Hungarian and kind of a mish-mash of both. So is that an unheard of UK pronunciation? A regional UK pronunciation? Or probably a quirk of this individual?
It’s supposed to be pronounced ‘ee-KAY-ah’.
The first syllable in the Swedish pronunciation is actually closer to the “short i” of English, and the second syllable is not a diphthong, like “ay” is (but may be heard as one in English.)
Examples are here:
So with the UK adverts, it seems my friend has some sort of weird mish-mash pronunciation.
I’ve always said Nutella closer to the way it is said in that UK ad, because I first encountered it in Europe. But the US ads use the Noo- pronunciation.
I’d say my pronunciation is a slightly softer version of the UK one, actually.
That’s interesting as I find the American pronunciation more like the way it is pronounced in most European languages. The vowel is /u/ or sometimes /y/ (like an ü) not /ʌ/.
Yeah, mine is sort of in between, I guess. In my dialect, I’d say Americans pronounce it New-tella. I’d say the UK pronunciation seems like Nut-tella, kind of emphasizing “nut.”
And mine is more like Nu-tella, with a vowel that is like the European u, which is more clipped than the American oo sound. And I sometimes slide toward a schwa with it – “nuh-tella.”
Data as a plural reminds me of this:
Plural forms ending in -ae. Algae, larvae, antennae, alumnae, vertebrae, etc.
According to all my science profs back in college (and all the dictionaries), the proper pronunciation is -ee as in bee.
Interesting. To me, Mary, marry, and merry are quite distinct. But I pronounce merry and Murray, exactly the same. Bugs my wife. But her pronounciation of merry sounds almost like Mary to me.
The Swedish é sound may not be canonically a diphthong, but as far as I can tell it is often/usually realised as one. Not the same diphthong as the English “ay” though, I’ll give you that.
I agree. Data functions as a singular noun in English just as “news” or “physics” does, even though they are plural in form.
I heard an anecdote years ago illustrating the point. A traditionally-minded or pompous editor inquired “Are there any news”, to which the reporter replied “Not a single damn new”.
“Media” is another example that may be treated as singular or plural depending on the speaker / context.
I don’t know about Swedish enough to guess. I do know that English speakers have a habit of hearing the é sound as an “ay,” which is why you get stuff like “hoe-ZAY” for José or “oh-LAY” for olé. I do know that in IPA it is spelled out as /e:/ rather than /eɪ/. It’s a subtle difference, though.