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