They go both ways. In the "data" entry, they say it is usually plural, and
takes plural verbs and pronouns, but then they refer to an article on
collective nouns. They offer some examples where the data may be considered as
a single unit and take a singular noun ("the data is sound."). They don't
mention datum as the singular. However, Webster says data "usually" takes
singular verb forms.
I think it is rapidly turning into a word like sheep, one sheep, two sheep.
The singular form, datum, is mostly used in the "reference point" definition as
something like an origin for other calculations or measurements, like the North
American Datum for maps.
--- On Sun, 6/17/12, mechtly, eugene a <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mechtly, eugene a <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:51709] RE: Fw: Re: Re: 2012 AP Stlyebook Available, still with
metric errors
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 3:57 PM
#yiv736104066 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
John,
What does the AP Stylebook say about the number of Latin words?
For example; A datum is one item of information. Data are more than one item
of information.
Gene Mechtly
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of John M.
Steele [[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:53 PM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:51705] Fw: Re: Re: 2012 AP Stlyebook Available, still with
metric errors
Well, I ordered the 2012 AP Stylebook and it arrived. I checked and they
incorporated ZERO of the seven recommendations below and detailed in my letter
to them last summer.
They remain commited to innumeracy and incorrect metric usage. Most important
is NOT incorporating a good metric reference (SP 330) in their bibliography as
the other issues would sort themselves out if they had a reference. However,
they prefer obsolete and erroneous definitions of the kelvin and liter,
outdated radiation units, incorrect symbols for km/h and kW·h, and to report
the field events of track in field only in feet and inches although they are
measured only in metric (except high school).
On the subject entries, not a word was changed.
They remain secure in their position as the root cause of most metric usage
errors in the US media. I guess my copy of the Stylebook will be donated to my
local library as I see no point wasting further time or money with them.
--- On Thu, 5/31/12, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA:51661] Re: 2012 AP Stlyebook Available
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 11:40 AM
Stan,
They mostly require spelled out unit names, but they allow a few selected
symbols that they consider "widespread." Naturally, they get these wrong as in
kph and kwh, which they specifically allow. Unfortunately, they should be km/h
and kW·h, which they DON'T allow, even as an alternate.
I agree with your recommendation that symbols are preferred to spelled out
units. However, the point is debatable. Is the metric for Americans (who
aren't very metric and may not understand), or for foreign readers (and
immigrants) who don't understand Customary well? The former may prefer spelled
out units, the latter symbols.
In either case, spelled out units or symbols (assuming they are correct) are
both accepted in the SI. My initial focus was their outright errors. After
those are fixed, THEN we can work on their basic metric policy (convert to
Customary unless the metric is an important part of the story (with complete
lack of guidelines on what is "important.")
I wrote to one automotive writer about kph vs km/h. I pointed out that under
FMVSS 101, kph is illegal on the instrument panel of the cars he writes about,
and km/h is required (assuming a dual unit speedometer). I encouraged him to
use the correct (and legally required) km/h instead of the stupid AP kph to
avoid confusing his readers. He didn't care. He shrugged it off as, "it's an
AP thing." Why should readers understand the article as long as AP pays?
--- On Thu, 5/31/12, Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:51661] Re: 2012 AP Stlyebook Available
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 10:23 AM
I also would appreciate hearing if AP "listened" to this suggestion:
AP recommends in its Stylebook to spell out names of units and prefixes. I
believe this practice is long obsolete as people encounter symbols of units and
numbers daily, such as with grocery labeling or auto-parts packages. Often,
people know those symbols but not necessarily the words they represent.
Avoiding spelling the words saves paper space and ink, provides for
understanding among languages, and eases reading. Finding numerical data in a
text is a breeze.
Please adjust the wording in the Guide to allow or, better yet, recommend the
use of symbols. For example, just as the 5 in a statement such as 5
kilowatthours is allowed to be a symbol so should be the brief 5 kWh.
Stan Jakuba
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:22 AM, John M. Steele <[email protected]>
wrote:
The Associated Press has begun accepting orders for the 2012 edition of their
Stylebook, the source of most metric usage errors in the media. At $20.95 +
$7.95 S&H, I am not rushing to buy. (Last year, I got a discount through Amazon
later in the summer).
If any USMA member has access to the 2012 edition through their organization, I
would very much appreciate feedback on whether they have made any of the seven
corrections I recommended last year. My full letter is a Word attachment to
USMA 50894, still available on the archive. A simple summary of the
recommendations, which may be used as a checklist is:
Bibliography: No authoritative metric reference, consider NIST SP330
Kelvin: Offset to degrees Celsius is incorrect, should be 273.15 degrees
Kilometer per hour: Abbreviation "kph" is wrong, should be "km/h"
Kilowatt hour: Abbreviation "kwh" is wrong, should be "kWh"
Liter: Definition is obsolete, properly defined as 1 cubic decimeter
Nuclear terminology: The "standard" units given are obsolete and need update
Track and field: Needs correct metric examples for field events
NOTE: On the nuclear point, gray, sievert, and coulomb per kilogram should
replace rad, rem, roentgen.
If anyone is able to check these for me, thanks in advance.
