“data” and mass nouns: an introduction
the debate over whether data is “singular or plural” annoys me to no end. not because i think the other side of it is dumb, but because i think they’re both dumb. here’s how it breaks down:
if data was plural, “data are useful” would sound coherent. it doesn’t. if data was singular, “a data is useful” would sound coherent. it doesn’t. data is a mass noun. this is the third kind that they should teach you about in primary school with the other two, because it’s just as common. a few guidelines: if it’s not plural but can’t be pluralised, it’s a mass noun. you can have steel but you can’t have steels. steel is a mass noun. if the question “how many” doesn’t make sense, it’s a mass noun. you can’t ask “how many waters are in the river.” water is a mass noun. if you can use it with “is” (not “are”) but without an article (a, the), it’s a mass noun. “life is good,” makes sense. life is a mass noun. and of course, this only applies if it’s not a proper noun (a name), which are their own thing and follow their own rules. in this essay i will
and yes, i know data is traditionally a plural noun. i’m adamant, not ignorant. but if that’s not how people use it, then that’s not what it is. prescriptivism is a neat little idea in theory but it just can’t get shit done in the real world.
