Home > Archive > Fortran > September 2005 > collective nouns -- Re: Optimal programming advice
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
collective nouns -- Re: Optimal programming advice
|
|
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-09, 7:56 am |
|
<Pedant>
>Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>
>I'm in pedant mode:
>
>'data are better' please
"The band are eating their lunches." collective plural (it is done individually)
"The band is playing a Sousa march." Singular collective (it is a group, a.k.a., collective, activity)
My data are sometimes individuals, but in what I wrote above I was thinking of
the data as a collective entity, jointly painting a picture of the code execution,
wherein it were most definitely singular in nature.
We can argue whether it is appropriate to presume sigular collective applies in
sucha case, mayhap 'tis not. So, perhaps my thinking was in error, but my punctuation
was consistent with my thinking -- and punctuated as a singular collective usage --
quite defensibly.
But, yes, if you consider "data" to be a collective not acting collectively, but only acting
individually, then the plural is most definitely demanded.
</Pedant>
| |
| Gordon Sande 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| On 2005-09-09 09:10:27 -0300, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> said:
>
> <Pedant>
>
> "The band are eating their lunches." collective plural (it is done
> individually)
> "The band is playing a Sousa march." Singular collective (it is a
> group, a.k.a., collective, activity)
>
> My data are sometimes individuals, but in what I wrote above I was
> thinking of the data as a collective entity, jointly painting a picture
> of the code execution,
> wherein it were most definitely singular in nature.
> We can argue whether it is appropriate to presume sigular collective
> applies in sucha case, mayhap 'tis not. So, perhaps my thinking was in
> error, but my punctuation was consistent with my thinking -- and
> punctuated as a singular collective usage -- quite defensibly.
>
> But, yes, if you consider "data" to be a collective not acting
> collectively, but only acting
> individually, then the plural is most definitely demanded.
> </Pedant>
When I use a line count profile I find that each datum refers to
the activity of a single line. So my collective data acts individually
on a line by line basis.
I have a t-shirt that reads
"In God we trust
All others bring Data"
which applies to many things. Certainly trying to guess where
the bottlenecks are in a large program is one of those things.
A cautionary note on profiles is that a utility which serves
several callers may respond quickly to one set and slowly to another.
"Optimizing" may result in medium response to all which is an
improvement for worse if the high use was already quick. This
awkward case is better understood by duplicating code so util_a
is used by caller a and util_b is used by caller b. Once the
optimization effort is done any duplicates should be undone or
at least made into wrappers for the common code.
This sort of thing has happened to me where a sparse solver was
mostly used with very sparse right hand sides but every so often
had denser right hand sides. End result was three solver methods
matched to the known density of the right hand sides. They are
very sparse, sparse and dense.
Note that this is all at the algorithm level as code polishing
is not where the action is.
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
> <Pedant>
>
>
>
> "The band are eating their lunches." collective plural (it is done individually)
> "The band is playing a Sousa march." Singular collective (it is a group, a.k.a., collective, activity)
But here you are using "band" in two different ways; the first to
indicate the band *members* (plural), the second to indicate the band
*itself* (singular). Hence, the use of "are" and then "is".
Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
cheers,
Rich
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| >> My data are sometimes individuals, but in what I wrote above I was
>When I use a line count profile I find that each datum refers to
>the activity of a single line. So my collective data acts individually
>on a line by line basis.
Yes, but knowing that line #137 takes 0.6 seconds of execution time tells me MUCH
less than it does when I know that all the other lines take 0.006 seconds or less.
And I really wouldn't care, for this round of optimization, if line #137 takes 0.6
seconds if line #423 takes 600.6 seconds. So, while the individual data items say
somewhat, in and of themselves, only when I look at them as a collective entity do
I truly begin to understand the time usage of the program.
Or at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| >Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
>was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
>of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
>happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
Similar to the reply in the other subthread, consider if a profiler returns
the following individual data:
Sub1: 0.06
Sub2: 0.05
Sub3: 0.01
versus a situation with the following individual data:
Sub1: 0.60
Sub2: 0.05
Sub3: 0.01
Although only one datum has changed, the picture given by the data (collectively)
is significantly different. The data in the second case paints a different picture
(that being one example of a collective singular usage).
I propose that in profiling analysis of code, the collective presentation of the
the data is more often relevant than the particulars of any one datum or limited
number of data. It is like a halftone picture in a newspaper, no one dot is very
relevant, and in nearly all cases the loss of any one dot would be insignificant,
the picture is formed from the collection of dots. Individual profiling data are
insignificant, the "picture" is formed from them all, in which case the data are not,
individually, all that relevant. Rather the data is painting a picture of the
code execution.
I do realize that this is, at least in part, subject to interpretation. I do claim
that the interpretation of the collective sense for data is neither inherently absurd
nor inherently contrived.
| |
| Ron Shepard 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| In article <dfs5er$ri4$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
> was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
> of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
> happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
Here is what Websters says:
"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 (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and
serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an
abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and
singular modifiers (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."
The other thing that has always  me is when nouns like
"none" and "zero" should be singular and when they should be plural.
None of my family is here. None of my family are here.
To keep the thread on topic, this is sort of like a zero-length
vector.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>
>
> Similar to the reply in the other subthread, consider if a profiler returns
> the following individual data:
> Sub1: 0.06
> Sub2: 0.05
> Sub3: 0.01
>
> versus a situation with the following individual data:
> Sub1: 0.60
> Sub2: 0.05
> Sub3: 0.01
>
> Although only one datum has changed, the picture given by the data (collectively)
> is significantly different. The data in the second case paints a different picture
> (that being one example of a collective singular usage).
Nah, it just doesn't sound right. Correct usage - to me, at least -
requires "The data in the second case paint a different picture...".
>
> I propose that in profiling analysis of code, the collective presentation of the
> the data is more often relevant than the particulars of any one datum or limited
> number of data. It is like a halftone picture in a newspaper, no one dot is very
> relevant, and in nearly all cases the loss of any one dot would be insignificant,
> the picture is formed from the collection of dots. Individual profiling data are
> insignificant, the "picture" is formed from them all, in which case the data are not,
> individually, all that relevant. Rather the data is painting a picture of the
> code execution.
>
> I do realize that this is, at least in part, subject to interpretation. I do claim
> that the interpretation of the collective sense for data is neither inherently absurd
> nor inherently contrived.
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| In article <dfs5er$ri4$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
> was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
> of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
> happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
Flight data is needed to validate aerodynamic characteristics.
While many pieces of data are certainly involved, the statement is about
the collective data as a whole. I find the singular verb appropriate.
NASA publication folk often have a knee-jerk reaction to always treat
data as plural, but that's just a bureaucratic rule. It is the nature of
bureaucratic rules that they get applied without thought in cases where
they make no sense. That's almost the defining property of bureaucracy.
NASA has a bunch of other grammatical and spelling rules that have on
occasion caused me to reword reports to avoid the "problem" rule because
I didn't want to sound as illiterate as the NASA rule was going to make
me appear. I've generally noticed that the alleged NASA publication
experts who explain these rules to me don't seem to be as well read on
the subjects as I am.
I consider the rule that "data is always plural" to be much like "never
use goto". While it might be good advice in a majority of the cases, it
often gets applied in an automatic manner to places where it makes
things worse instead of better.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| In article
<ron-shepard-64E8ED.10062709092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ron Shepard <ron-shepard@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
> "Data...
> as an abstract mass noun (like information),
That's exactly the sense of my example. In fact, one could have
substituted "Flight information" in place of "Flight data", though
"data" is the more common usage in that context.
> taking a singular verb and
> singular modifiers (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."
The "style of several publishers mandates it" sounds very familiar.
That's also part of what I was referring to, NASA being the publisher in
question in my case.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| In article <4321A33C.BF4DEDE0@alum.mit.edu>,
"Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Although only one datum has changed, the picture given by the data
> (collectively) is significantly different.
Oh. I was going to add another very Fortran-relevant example to my last
post, but I forgot to do so before sending it.
A scalar object of a derived type is a singular datum in some sense, but
it might have multiple pieces of data in it as components. Likewise for
an array. I'm not going to try to turn this into a wording example right
now, but I do think it is a good illustration of how something can
straddle the boundary of being singular or plural.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Gordon Sande 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| On 2005-09-09 11:15:46 -0300, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> said:
>
> Yes, but knowing that line #137 takes 0.6 seconds of execution time
> tells me MUCH
> less than it does when I know that all the other lines take 0.006
> seconds or less.
> And I really wouldn't care, for this round of optimization, if line
> #137 takes 0.6 seconds if line #423 takes 600.6 seconds. So, while the
> individual data items say
> somewhat, in and of themselves, only when I look at them as a
> collective entity do
> I truly begin to understand the time usage of the program.
>
> Or at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)
Some folks are capable of adding up the data for all the lines
in a program unit and attributing that to the unit. In fact
it may even be done by the program that does the line couning.
It sure helps if you tend to run out of fingers to do the counting. ;-)
All the ones I have used have that level of user friendliness.
Where did you find such a user hostile program like the one you
are describing?
By the way, I find EXACT line counts more useful that sampled
timings which is what you seem to be describing. But then with
clever snipping almost anything can be misquoted for the internet.
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| >Where did you find such a user hostile program like the one you
>are describing?
Contrived example. No real code was harmed in the production.
| |
| glen herrmannsfeldt 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| Rich Townsend wrote:
(snip)
> Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
> was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
> of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
> happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
I thought that this had been officially changed many years ago.
Consider "water" which can describe either a single water molecule,
in the sense it might be used by a chemist, or a collection of water
molecules, as more commonly used. In any case ...
---------------------
Reading a follow up from this post (I read in reverse posting order)
reminded me of a program called FETE that I knew many years ago.
FETE, Fortran Execution Time Estimator, would read in a Fortran 66
program and write out a different Fortran 66 program that would:
1) Execute the logic of the original program while counting how
many times each statement was executed and how many times each
logical IF was true.
2) After the logical end, write out the source program with each line
followed by the number of times it was executed, and approximate
relative cost, and, for logical IFs, the number of times true.
I once tried to find a copy, but I haven't found one even after asking
the original author. (There is a published paper describing it.)
I also never saw the processed Fortran code.
I do wonder if anyone knows of a copy of FETE still around, for
its historical value.
-- glen
| |
| Michael Prager 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
>was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
>of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
>happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
From Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989):
The word "data" is a queer fish. It is an English word formed
from a Latin plural; however, it leads a life of its own quite
independent of its latin ancestor, and equally independent of
the English word "datum," of which it is supposed to be the
plural. ...
In its current use, "data" occurs in two constructions: as a
plural noun taking a plural verb and certain plural modifiers
.... but not cardinal numbers; and as an abstract mass noun (like
"information"), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers
...., and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). ...
There is more of interest in that source, but I don't want to
quote more of a copyrighted work here.
--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.
| |
| Dr Ivan D. Reid 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:06:27 -0500,
Ron Shepard <ron-shepard@NOSPAM.comcast.net>
wrote in <ron-shepard-64E8ED.10062709092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
> The other thing that has always me is when nouns like
> "none" and "zero" should be singular and when they should be plural.
> None of my family is here. None of my family are here.
Well, the way I was taught that one, at least (#It was long ago,
and it was far away...) "none" stands as a contraction of "not one" so:
"Not one of my family is here." vs. "Not one of my family are here." YMMV
ISTR "kein(e)" in German being easier to get right if you understood
it as a contraction of "nicht ein(e)" too.
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| Michael Prager wrote:
> Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989):
>
> The word "data" is a queer fish. It is an English word formed
> from a Latin plural; however, it leads a life of its own quite
> independent of its latin ancestor, and equally independent of
> the English word "datum," of which it is supposed to be the
> plural. ...
>
> In its current use, "data" occurs in two constructions: as a
> plural noun taking a plural verb and certain plural modifiers
> ... but not cardinal numbers; and as an abstract mass noun (like
> "information"), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers
> ..., and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). ...
>
> There is more of interest in that source, but I don't want to
> quote more of a copyrighted work here.
>
>
From "Ask Oxford", which appears to be a spin-off website from the OED:
"Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, and should be used with
a plural verb (like facts). However, there has been a growing tendency
to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed
by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in
American use, and in the context of information technology. The
traditional usage is still preferable, at least in Britain, but it may
soon become a lost cause."
From my perspective as a Brit, use of "data" in a singular context is
still unacceptable (and really grates on my ears); but I was interested
to read that this usage has wider acceptance in the USA.
cheers,
Rich
| |
| Duane Bozarth 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| Rich Townsend wrote:
>
....
> From my perspective as a Brit, use of "data" in a singular context is
> still unacceptable (and really grates on my ears); but I was interested
> to read that this usage has wider acceptance in the USA.
We uneducated colonists are much more lax in many such usages, it
appears.
However, we at least do know that automobiles don't wear "boots"... :)
I will say that when in university in engineering prof's did make at
least an attempt to maintain the proper usage. That, of course, was 40
years ago and it appears that the cause is indeed lost by now for all
practical purposes. I think there is still an attempt in refereed
journals, etc., but outside that type of usage it's almost ubiquitous.
| |
| Dushan Mitrovich 2005-09-09, 6:59 pm |
| "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> "The band are eating their lunches." collective plural (it is done indi-
> vidually) "The band is playing a Sousa march." Singular collective (it
> is a group, a.k.a., collective, activity)
>
> My data are sometimes individuals, but in what I wrote above I was
> thinking of the data as a collective entity, jointly painting a picture
> of the code execution, wherein it were most definitely singular in
> nature.
>
> We can argue whether it is appropriate to presume sigular collective
> applies in sucha case, mayhap 'tis not. So, perhaps my thinking was in
> error, but my punctuation was consistent with my thinking -- and punc-
> tuated as a singular collective usage -- quite defensibly.
>
> But, yes, if you consider "data" to be a collective not acting collec-
> tively, but only acting individually, then the plural is most definitely
> demanded.
So is this phrase correct 'A1, A2,... An are a general set of vectors'?
My ear objects since 'set' is singular, tho my mind doesn't.
- Dushan Mitrovich
| |
| Ron Shepard 2005-09-10, 6:58 pm |
| In article <nospam-166F18.08145309092005@news.supernews.com>,
Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> Flight data is needed to validate aerodynamic characteristics.
While I might well speak, or even write, this sentence myself, I
don't think this is a good example of the use of "singular" data.
First, if you change "is" to "are", the meaning of the sentence
remains unchanged. That is, "data" really does have a plural
meaning in the sentence, so it probably should be conjugated with
"are" rather than "is".
Second, if you try to use a singular article adjective to refer to
"flight data", it sounds odd to my ear. For example, "A flight data
is needed to validate aerodynamic characteristics." doesn't sound
right, which suggests also that "flight data" really is a plural
entity in that sentence. If you change "A" to "More" or "Some" or
some other adjective associated with a plural noun, then it sounds
alright.
On the other hand, "these data" is grammatically correct, but it
never really sounds right to me either, probably because almost no
one uses it that way in everyday spoken language.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
| |
| Richard Maine 2005-09-10, 6:58 pm |
| In article
<ron-shepard-559726.09490410092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Ron Shepard <ron-shepard@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <nospam-166F18.08145309092005@news.supernews.com>,
> Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>
>
> "A flight data
> is needed to validate aerodynamic characteristics." doesn't sound
> right, which suggests also that "flight data" really is a plural
> entity in that sentence.
I agree it doesn't sound right, but I disagree about the reason. I'd say
that it was more that the "data" was neither a specific singular item
nor a plural one, but a... I forget the term..., but something whose
quantity is not normally enumerated as a number of items. Like milk, as
in "Milk is good to drink." One would not say "A milk is good to drink",
but neither would you say "Milk are good to drink.".
Of course, I could have further matters by using "wine" instead
of "milk", as I might well refer to "A wine", while I'd never refer to
"A milk." :-)
| |
| James Giles 2005-09-10, 6:58 pm |
| The main divide in this thread seems to be regional, or
based on national origin. It should be remembered that
citizens of Commonwealth countries tend to refer to
"government" in the plural as well. (I tried using "data"
as plural and "datum" as the singular for a while and
all people I spoke with thought is strange. I gave up
when I noticed that I found it sounded odd myself when
someone else used that distinction. I think the US
usage is steadily eliminating "datum" entirely.)
--
J. Giles
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare
| |
| Richard Maine 2005-09-10, 6:58 pm |
| In article
<veHUe.222997$5N3.115914@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (I tried using "data"
> as plural and "datum" as the singular for a while and
> all people I spoke with thought is strange. I gave up
> when I noticed that I found it sounded odd myself when
> someone else used that distinction. I think the US
> usage is steadily eliminating "datum" entirely.)
Well that's a data point. :-)
(Yes, I do know that the use as an adjective is a different case.)
| |
| Ken Plotkin 2005-09-11, 3:56 am |
| On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:00:24 -0400, Rich Townsend
<rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> From my perspective as a Brit, use of "data" in a singular context is
>still unacceptable (and really grates on my ears); but I was interested
>to read that this usage has wider acceptance in the USA.
Yes, but there is a workaround that is gaining a foothold: "data set."
| |
| glen herrmannsfeldt 2005-09-12, 3:56 am |
| Ken Plotkin wrote:
(snip about singular/plural data)
> Yes, but there is a workaround that is gaining a foothold: "data set."
There is a tendency not to use any term that IBM uses.
IBM has traditionally called a "data set" what most people seem
to call a file. Though a "data set" may have more structure than
is usually given to a "file".
There is, for example, the PDS, Partitioned Data Set, which has multiple
members, sometimes known as a library or maybe archive.
What many call disks, IBM still calls DASD, Direct Access Storage
Device, which has included drums and fixed head disks. It would
also include DECtape, though I don't know that IBM ever sold a
computer with a DECtape drive on it.
-- glen
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| >So is this phrase correct 'A1, A2,... An are a general set of vectors'?
>My ear objects since 'set' is singular, tho my mind doesn't.
I believe the debate upon this has been extensively discussed elsewhere in this
thread. Perhaps it were safer to just say:
'A1, A2,... An form a general set of vectors'
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>
>
> I believe the debate upon this has been extensively discussed elsewhere in this
> thread. Perhaps it were safer to just say:
> 'A1, A2,... An form a general set of vectors'
Nah, the original phrase is fine. The "are" applies to a (plural) group
of items (A1, A2, A3) not to the (singular) word "set".
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| >Nah, the original phrase is fine.
I agree. But the person indicated it sounded funny, so I suggested an alternate.
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| In article <dg45n5$a05$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> Kevin G. Rhoads wrote:
>
> Nah, the original phrase is fine. The "are" applies to a (plural) group
> of items (A1, A2, A3) not to the (singular) word "set".
Hmm. To my ear, the original sounds horrid because I think that you need
number agreement. My ear's parser doesn't just stop when it comes to the
"are" and conclude that it agreed with the subject so nothing later
could matter. I think that the "are" has to agree in number with both
sides - not just with the subject. The original has
plural-form are singular-form
and I don't think the singular form fits.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| Richard E Maine wrote:
> In article <dg45n5$a05$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
> Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hmm. To my ear, the original sounds horrid because I think that you need
> number agreement. My ear's parser doesn't just stop when it comes to the
> "are" and conclude that it agreed with the subject so nothing later
> could matter. I think that the "are" has to agree in number with both
> sides - not just with the subject. The original has
>
> plural-form are singular-form
>
> and I don't think the singular form fits.
>
"Delware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey ..... Alaska and Hawai'i
ARE the United States of America. The United States of America IS
involved in a protracted war in Iraq"
That seems to work, no?
cheers,
Rich
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| In article <dg49a7$avu$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> Richard E Maine wrote:
> The original has
>
> "Delware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey ..... Alaska and Hawai'i
> ARE the United States of America.
No, I don't think that they are. The whole (the U.S.) is greater than
the sum of its parts (list of states). To drag back in a token Fortran
reference, if I had a derived type object with multiple components, I
would not say that "the components are the object". Some things (many,
actually) depend on the derived type rather than on just the components.
So I think that sentence is wrong.
> The United States of America IS involved in a protracted war in Iraq"
That's completely different in that the verb is "is involved". The "is"
here is just in a helper role to establish the tense of "involved". The
verb "to be" has many wildly different uses. The use as a verb
expressing equivalence or identity is very different from that as a
helper verb setting tense. Anyway, I say this sentence is correct
because the U.S. singular is involved.
If it were just 50 states that were involved, as opposed to the U.S.,
maybe us Californians could pull out. :-(
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-12, 6:58 pm |
| >maybe us Californians could pull out. :-(
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
| |
| GF Thomas 2005-09-13, 7:57 am |
|
"Richard E Maine" <nospam@see.signature> wrote in message
news:nospam-39EDD0.09312312092005@news.supernews.com...
The Brit Martin Parrott in his 'Grammar for English Language Teachers',
Winner of the Duke of Edinburgh's English Language Award 2000 (Cambridge
University Press, ISBN 0 521 47797 2, 2004), on the business of collective
nouns, p.12:
"Collective nouns are words which represent groups .... These nouns are
singular ..
Some people believe that these nouns should be followed by singular verb
forms ... and that singular pronouns should be used ... However, most
people use plural verb forms and pronouns.
People sometimes choose either singular or plural verb forms according to
whether they are thinking in terms of a unified 'body' or the various
people who make it up."
To illustrate what the foregoing means, in the Introduction to his tome,
Parrot remarks on p.2 that "Authentic data has been used extensively in..."
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Feynman, in The
Pleasure of Finding Things Out.
| |
| John Harper 2005-09-13, 7:57 am |
| In article <7+gID5aAHo6Y092yn@spinn.net>,
Dushan Mitrovich <anti@spamming.org> wrote:
>So is this phrase correct 'A1, A2,... An are a general set of vectors'?
>My ear objects since 'set' is singular, tho my mind doesn't.
Really? Does your ear also object when it hears 'Andrew, Betty and Carol
are a family'? 'Family' is just as singular as 'set'.
John Harper, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science,
Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail john.harper@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| In article <nospam-2AA7F5.09300810092005@news.supernews.com>,
Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>In article
><ron-shepard-559726.09490410092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Ron Shepard <ron-shepard@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>I agree it doesn't sound right, but I disagree about the reason. I'd say
>that it was more that the "data" was neither a specific singular item
>nor a plural one, but a... I forget the term..., but something whose
>quantity is not normally enumerated as a number of items. Like milk, as
>in "Milk is good to drink." One would not say "A milk is good to drink",
>but neither would you say "Milk are good to drink.".
>
>Of course, I could have further matters by using "wine" instead
>of "milk", as I might well refer to "A wine", while I'd never refer to
>"A milk." :-)
I think the term you're looking for is "mass noun" (as opposed to
"count noun"). The Wikipedia article seems like a reasonable summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
The folks over at alt.usage.english have probably discussed this one
at length on many occasions.
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| In article <dft0ln$6dv$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>Michael Prager wrote:
>
> From "Ask Oxford", which appears to be a spin-off website from the OED:
>
>"Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, and should be used with
>a plural verb (like facts). However, there has been a growing tendency
>to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed
>by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in
>American use, and in the context of information technology. The
>traditional usage is still preferable, at least in Britain, but it may
>soon become a lost cause."
>
> From my perspective as a Brit, use of "data" in a singular context is
>still unacceptable (and really grates on my ears); but I was interested
>to read that this usage has wider acceptance in the USA.
I'm interested that this may be what the folks in alt.usage.english
seem to call a "pondian difference" (US versus UK). My perception
(from the US) had been that using "data" as singular is the norm in
computing/IT, but not in the sciences (where it's used as plural).
To me, "data are" sounds pedantic, and in the context of CS/IT even
wrong, since in most cases I think we use the word to mean a somewhat
amorphous collection of bits, roughly (though not entirely) synonymous
with "information".
The thing that's funny to me is that normally I'm staunchly against
this kind of linguistic "evolution" ("corruption" is usually more
like it), and yet in this case I think it makes sense.
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| In article <nospam-39EDD0.09312312092005@news.supernews.com>,
Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>In article <dg49a7$avu$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
> Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>No, I don't think that they are. The whole (the U.S.) is greater than
>the sum of its parts (list of states). To drag back in a token Fortran
>reference, if I had a derived type object with multiple components, I
>would not say that "the components are the object". Some things (many,
>actually) depend on the derived type rather than on just the components.
>
>So I think that sentence is wrong.
You would seriously say "the components is the object"?? Say it
isn't so. It seems obvious to me (though I admit that my knowledge
of English grammar comes more from having been raised by a former
English teacher than from formal study) that the subject of the
sentence is "components", which takes a plural verb.
>
>That's completely different in that the verb is "is involved". The "is"
>here is just in a helper role to establish the tense of "involved". The
>verb "to be" has many wildly different uses. The use as a verb
>expressing equivalence or identity is very different from that as a
>helper verb setting tense. Anyway, I say this sentence is correct
>because the U.S. singular is involved.
Say what? I don't think whatever distinction you're making here
makes sense, or a difference. What about the sentence "the United
States of America goes to war when [ you fill in conditions here --
I don't want to be politically provocative ]"? Still a singular
verb, no? since in US usage, we refer to a country as singular,
even when the name sounds plural.
[ snip ]
>--
>Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
>email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
>org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| In article <3oo7olF6v31fU4@individual.net>,
blmblm@myrealbox.com (blmblm@myrealbox.com) wrote:
> In article <nospam-39EDD0.09312312092005@news.supernews.com>,
> Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> You would seriously say "the components is the object"?? Say it
> isn't so.
It isn't so. You missed my point. The sentence in either version is
factually wrong in matters more fundamental than number. The components
are not the same thing as the object; no fiddling with number is going
to change that. I might say that the object is formed from the
components, or I might use any number of other descriptive mechanisms.
In this case, the whole is not the same as the sum of its parts. The
distinction is fundamental; if you fail to appreciate that, then your
Fortran code won't compile. The two derived types
type one
integer :: i,j
end type
type two
integer :: i,j
end type
are not the same type in spite of having identical components. Just
listing the components of an object doesn't tell you which of these two
(or other) types you have. This is not just a matter of English grammar;
it is technically wrong Fortran. Whether your ear agrees or not, your
compiler won't. That was the point I was making here.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| Richard E Maine wrote:
> In article <3oo7olF6v31fU4@individual.net>,
> blmblm@myrealbox.com (blmblm@myrealbox.com) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It isn't so. You missed my point. The sentence in either version is
> factually wrong in matters more fundamental than number. The components
> are not the same thing as the object; no fiddling with number is going
> to change that. I might say that the object is formed from the
> components, or I might use any number of other descriptive mechanisms.
>
> In this case, the whole is not the same as the sum of its parts. The
> distinction is fundamental; if you fail to appreciate that, then your
> Fortran code won't compile.
And there was me thinking this debate was about English.
:)
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| In article <nospam-FB79F9.09230513092005@news.supernews.com>,
Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>In article <3oo7olF6v31fU4@individual.net>,
> blmblm@myrealbox.com (blmblm@myrealbox.com) wrote:
>
>
>
>It isn't so. You missed my point.
Cue retroactive sound of point whizzing over my head. I sure did (miss
your point).
>The sentence in either version is
>factually wrong in matters more fundamental than number. The components
>are not the same thing as the object; no fiddling with number is going
>to change that.
Got it. (And I don't disagree with the point you *were* making, as
opposed to the one I *thought* you were making.)
[ snip ]
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| Kevin G. Rhoads 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| >> It isn't so. You missed my point. The sentence in either version is
>
>And there was me thinking this debate was about English.
>
>:)
"Topic drift, thy name is Usenet."
| |
| Dushan Mitrovich 2005-09-13, 6:59 pm |
| harper@mcs.vuw.ac.nz (John Harper) wrote:
>Dushan Mitrovich <anti@spamming.org> wrote:
>
> Really? Does your ear also object when it hears 'Andrew, Betty and Carol
> are a family'? 'Family' is just as singular as 'set'.
No, I have to admit, my ear doesn't object to your example at all. Maybe
my ear just needs more training.
- Dushan Mitrovich
| |
| Dick Hendrickson 2005-09-14, 7:00 pm |
|
Rich Townsend wrote:
> Richard E Maine wrote:
>
>
>
> And there was me thinking this debate was about English.
Shouldn't that be "And there was I..."? ;)
Dick Hendrickson
> :)
| |
| Rich Townsend 2005-09-14, 7:00 pm |
| Dick Hendrickson wrote:
>
>
> Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>
>
> Shouldn't that be "And there was I..."? ;)
>
Yep. I should know better than to rashly post grammatically-incorrect English.
cheers,
Rich
| |
| Dave Thompson 2005-09-19, 3:56 am |
| On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:16:13 -0400, Rich Townsend
<rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> Whereas "data" is, intrinsically, a plural word. If the singular version
> was intended, then "datum" should have been used instead. I can't think
> of any context where "data" should be treated as singular, but I'd be
> happy to hear specific claims of singularity.
>
Star Trek The Next Generation. In two senses: number=one and unusual.
- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net
| |
| Mr Hrundi V Bakshi 2005-09-19, 3:56 am |
|
"Dave Thompson" <david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:v3pki1l63g9c8qdvmkbkan90v9vlotbqrc@
4ax.com...
You're late and irrelevant, the story of your life and townsend's (sic Andy
Capp) is of no interest to anyone, so begone.
--
Hrundi,
____
"Ah, Klinger, my constant reminder that Darwin was right!." -- Maj Charles
Winchester III, the 4077th M*A*S*H
|
|
|
|
|