[net.nlang] "Data points"

irenas@tekig4.UUCP (Irena Sifrar) (08/14/85)

Every time I hear somebody say "a data point", something
doesn't sound right.  I think that "a datum point" would
in most cases be more correct.

I would like to hear your opinion on it.

Irena Sifrar
tektronix!tekig4!irenas or tektronix!reed!irena

barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (08/18/85)

I think "a data point" is a valid use.  It means (to me) "a single point
in the data."  The word "data" is being used to modify the word "point",
so it doesn't need to be singular; it is being used more as a collective
(as in "a family member").  The phrase "a datum point" is redundant and
wordy, as a data point IS a datum.
-- 
    Barry Margolin
    ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
    UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) (08/18/85)

> Every time I hear somebody say "a data point", something doesn't sound right.
> I think that "a datum point" would in most cases be more correct.
> I would like to hear your opinion on it.
>    Irena Sifrar

Actually, I'd prefer "datum" without the "point", but in general you are
correct: a noun used attributively like this must always be singular, even if
the noun phrase as a whole is plural, or a collection is implied.  Another
common error is "media center" instead of "medium center", though one can see
why the latter is avoided.

The easiest way to test this is to use a noun with a regular plural, and see
which way works best.  A "film-projector center" or a "film-projectors center"?
The former, of course.
-- 
\\\\   Graeme Hirst    University of Toronto	Computer Science Department
////   utcsri!utai!gh  /  gh.toronto@csnet-relay  /  416-978-8747

neutron@hpfcla.UUCP (08/19/85)

>> Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
>> or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].

"Bread" is a noun, not an adjective.  Hence, it must be a "knife for bread"
and not "a bread knife".  Same with "a barn door" or "a piano recital"
or "a computer programmer".

Actually, it seems common in english to turn nouns into adjectives in
the above fashion.


							-Jack Applin

wdr@faron.UUCP (William D. Ricker) (08/19/85)

In article <214@tekig4.UUCP> irenas@tekig4.UUCP (Irena Sifrar) writes:
>Every time I hear somebody say "a data point", something
>doesn't sound right.  I think that "a datum point" would
>in most cases be more correct.
>
>I would like to hear your opinion on it.
>
>Irena Sifrar
>tektronix!tekig4!irenas or tektronix!reed!irena

Data (n.pl.) and  Datum (n.) are nouns, not adjectives.
The American Heritage Dictionary has a usage note under Data (n.pl.)
indicating that 50% of the usage panel accepts treating 'data' as a
singular, apparently as a collective noun (as in a gaggle of geese,
or a pride of lions).

Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].
indicating that 50% 

-- 

  William Ricker
  wdr@faron.UUCP						(UUCP)
  decvax!genrad!linus!faron!wdr					(UUCP)
 {allegra,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!faron!wdr	(UUCP)

Opinions are my own and not necessarily anyone elses.
No warranty, expressed or implied, is given about the veracity of any
statements contained herein.  Applicable law in your state may differ.

mkw0@bunny.UUCP (Maurice Wong) (08/21/85)

> 
> Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
> or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].
> 
> -- 
> 
>   William Ricker
>   wdr@faron.UUCP						(UUCP)
>   decvax!genrad!linus!faron!wdr					(UUCP)
>  {allegra,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!faron!wdr	(UUCP)
> 

The fact that "data" is a noun has nothing to do with whether "data
point" is grammatical.  There are thousands of noun-noun compounds in
the English language, such as "school bus", "speech data", etc. that are
perfectly ok.
-- 
Maurice Wong

ARPA or CSnet : wong%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay
UUCP: ...harvard!bunny!mkw0

rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (08/21/85)

In article <214@tekig4.UUCP> irenas@tekig4.UUCP (Irena Sifrar) writes:
>Every time I hear somebody say "a data point", something
>doesn't sound right.  I think that "a datum point" would
>in most cases be more correct.
>
In article <330@faron.UUCP> wdr@faron.UUCP (William D. Ricker) writes:
>Data (n.pl.) and  Datum (n.) are nouns, not adjectives.
>The American Heritage Dictionary has a usage note under Data (n.pl.)
>indicating that 50% of the usage panel accepts treating 'data' as a
>singular, apparently as a collective noun (as in a gaggle of geese,
>or a pride of lions).
>
>Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
>or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].

However, in English, nouns can be used attributively (adjectivally).
If we accept 'data' as a (syntactically) singular and (semantically) collective
noun, the expression 'a data point' should be as acceptable as 'a cattle ranch.'
-- 


+--------------+-------------------------------+
| Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell                  |
+--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 |
| 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583   |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------+
| ihnp4!ptsfa!rob                                        |
| {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob |
+--------------------------------------------------------+

jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/22/85)

> 
> Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
> or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].
> 
>   William Ricker

It is quite common in English to use nouns as adjectives:

	automobile tire
	book cover
	hair spray
	ice chest
	   .
	   .
	   .

It is reasonable and correct to use "data point" to mean a point in a set
of data.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff

ran@ho95e.UUCP (RANeinast) (08/22/85)

>Data (n.pl.) and  Datum (n.) are nouns, not adjectives.
>The American Heritage Dictionary has a usage note under Data (n.pl.)
>indicating that 50% of the usage panel accepts treating 'data' as a
>singular, apparently as a collective noun (as in a gaggle of geese,
>or a pride of lions).
>
>Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
>or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].
>indicating that 50% 
>
>  William Ricker

Right.
Thus it is not "house paint", but "paint for houses".
Thus it is not "telephone book", but "book for telephones".
Thus this whole discussion is not "horse shit", but "shit from horses".
-- 

". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran)
AT&T-Bell Labs

gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) (08/28/85)

> >Every time I hear somebody say "a data point", something
> >doesn't sound right.  I think that "a datum point" would
> >in most cases be more correct.
>
> Data (n.pl.) and  Datum (n.) are nouns, not adjectives.
> The American Heritage Dictionary has a usage note under Data (n.pl.)
> indicating that 50% of the usage panel accepts treating 'data' as a
> singular, apparently as a collective noun (as in a gaggle of geese,
> or a pride of lions).
>
> Data and datum are not adjectives.  Thus, it is either "a point of data,"
> or "a datum," not "a data point" [sic].
>
>   William Ricker

That has nothing to do with the question at all.  English (have you never
noticed?) allows one noun to modify another.  This is called noun-noun
modification (surprise!), and has been extensively studied in recent years.
It is a particularly difficult problem in computer understanding of language.

For example, "computer" is not listed as an adjective, but we can say
	computer science	computer game
	computer graphics	computer maintenance
The language is filled with such things.  Many have been lexicalized as
"canned phrases", but the construction is highly productive:
	thesis topic		cheese board
	chess clock		pilchard sandwich
	risk analysis		tent sale
	springbok expert	noun-noun modification diatribe
In addition, Levi (1978) has shown that many constructions that look like
adj-noun pairs are better analyzed as noun-noun pairs.

In the particular case at hand, the question is not whether a noun can modify
another, but whether the modifying noun may be a plural (it can't) or a mass
noun (it can -- e.g. "jelly sandwich" -- but it's stylistically very bad
in this particular case).

	Reference

LEVI, Judith N (1978).	The syntax and semantics of compound nominals.
New York: Academic Press, 1978.

-- 
\\\\   Graeme Hirst    University of Toronto	Computer Science Department
////   utcsri!utai!gh  /  gh.toronto@csnet-relay  /  416-978-8747