The [Atom feed](http://johnaugust.com/atom.php) was choking on quotation marks and other special characters. That should be fixed now.
‘Data’ is singular
I make my living writing dialogue — which, like real speech, is largely ungrammatical. Characters say “gimme” and “gotta” and “woulda.” They speak in fragments. Like this.
So I tend to be forgiving when a writer bends the rules, or uses words differently than I would prefer. Split infinitives? Fine by me. Dangling participles? No objection here. In fact, the only choice that drives me insane is when writers cling to false rules. To me, the shibboleth is the word “data.” This, from the Los Angeles Times:
Another 32 million have some information on file, but the data are too sketchy to create a traditional credit score, he said.
Most reasonable people would say “data is” rather than “data are.” Not only does it sound better, but it makes more sense. In this case, “data” refers to “some information” — it’s not clear what the individual bits of information would even be.
In fact, another article in the Times does treat data as singular:
Information security deals with issues such as who should access the data and how the data is stored, controlled, marked, disseminated and disposed of.
My suspicion is that the official style guide for the LA Times instructs writers to use data as a plural; the second writer broke the rule. “Data is plural” seems to be a common mandate. From The Economist’s [style guide](http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805687):
Propaganda looks plural but is not. Billiards, bowls, darts and fives are also singular. Data and media are plural. So are whereabouts. Teams that take the name of a town, country or university are plural, even when they look singular: England were bowled out for 56.
Why would publications insist on such arbitrary and wrong-sounding usages? Blame Latin. “Data” was originally the plural form of “datum,” which means “something given.” English speakers who use data as a plural noun, in constructions such as “these data” or “data are,” do so with conviction: they know intellectually that data is supposed to be plural, so they use it that way.
Unfortunately, many dictionaries disagree with them. From the [American Heritage Dictionary](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data):
[M]ore often scientists and researchers think of data as a singular mass entity like information, and most people now follow this in general usage.
[Oxford Dictionary](http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data) says the singular form is fine for us Yanks, and will probably become the rule in the Old World as well:
[T]here 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. Compare with agenda.
Yes, let’s. Following this logic, which I’ll call the Plurican Mandate —
If the word is plural in its source language, then it must be plural in English.
— the following sentences are correct:
(agendum, agenda)
* Let’s move on to the next agendum.
* The meeting’s agenda are long.
(graffito, graffiti)
* The boy was apprehended while spray-painting a graffito on the wall.
* Bathroom graffiti are particularly vulgar.
(forum, fora)
* This is the appropriate forum for this discussion.
* Due to a server problem, the fora are temporarily closed.
Obviously, I feel pretty strongly that blindly following the rules of the source language is ridiculous, or else I wouldn’t have written this interminable essay. But I’m not going to chastise individual writers for choosing the opposite tack. Different things sound right to different people. As long as no one is an asshole about it, Pluricans and Singlecrats can still get along.
All I would ask of the Pluricans is to get off their high horse. Saying “data are” is like an American putting a “u” in “color,” “honor,” or “valor.” No, it’s not technically wrong, but it’s showy, deliberate and vain.
It’s like over-pronouncing Italian at the Olive Garden. No one is impressed, and frankly, we’re just a little embarrassed for you.
Good book vs. movie comparison for ‘Big Fish’
[Boxofficeprophets](http://boxofficeprophets.com) has a well-considered article by Kim Hollis that looks at the differences between Daniel Wallace’s book and the movie version of Big Fish:
John August’s screenplay does take great liberties with the story detailed in the novel. Much is added or embellished, which is almost necessary given the brevity of the book. None of the expansion feels forced or off, though. It’s perfectly in keeping with the story of a man whose life was truly monumental.
You can read the rest [here](http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8537).
Thanks to [Daniel](http://danielwallace.org) for the forward.
Very useful “Dead Zone” writer’s guides
Last week, a reader asked if I could put up an example of a [show bible](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/more-dc-stuff-available-in-the-downloads-section). I didn’t have one to give. Fortunately, ‘DC’ wrote in with a [link to the writer’s guides](http://www.zen134237.zen.co.uk/Dead_Zone/) for USA Network’s series [The Dead Zone](http://www.usanetwork.com/series/thedeadzone/).
The guide for Season 3 weighs in as 108 pages of .pdf goodness, and includes summaries of all previous episodes plus guidelines for aspiring writers. Executive Producer [Michael Piller](http://imdb.com/name/nm0683522/) comes from the Star Trek camp, which has long allowed ardent fans to pitch potential episodes — very much the exception to the rule. Kudos to the producers for being so generous.
I’ve never watched The Dead Zone, but if I ever decide to catch up on previous seasons, I now know where to look.


