APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 4:36 pm

Anthony Barreiro wrote:What do you call Eta Carinae, or any other star that is commonly referred to by its Bayer designation? Just curious.

I'm a bit of a language geek, and enjoy such things as subject-verb agreement and genitive possessives.
Where the star name has fallen into common usage, like Alpha Centauri, I use the Latin form. In most other cases I don't. I usually refer to Eta Carina (although that one is a borderline case).

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Anthony Barreiro » Sat May 04, 2013 4:29 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:...

We can use our own usage in an effort to create change, as well. In most cases, I avoid using Latin plurals, and in astronomy I avoid using Latin genitives. This goes against the most common convention, but isn't strictly wrong... and perhaps my choice of usage will push the language a little in a different direction.
What do you call Eta Carinae, or any other star that is commonly referred to by its Bayer designation? Just curious.

I'm a bit of a language geek, and enjoy such things as subject-verb agreement and genitive possessives.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 4:22 pm

owlice wrote:I don't consider any of your usage wildly incorrect, but if you're going with "usage makes it correct," you'd have to pretty much give up noun-verb agreement and other such orthodoxies to fit in here. And standard spelling, too.
Well, to be more precise, I'm not arguing that a single person using English in an unorthodox way automatically makes the usage correct. But more than in most languages, what is correct is ultimately determined by consensus, and that can shift very quickly. This is particularly true of English vocabulary, where not only are new words common, but old words shift into new meanings, or new forms (such as "data" being collective, or "party" being a verb).

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by owlice » Sat May 04, 2013 4:04 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:(Which particular usage of mine are you considering "wildly incorrect"?)
I don't consider any of your usage wildly incorrect, but if you're going with "usage makes it correct," you'd have to pretty much give up noun-verb agreement and other such orthodoxies to fit in here. And standard spelling, too.

(More times than I would have liked -- I'd have preferred zero -- I had to correct the spelling lists my son brought home from school. These lists were typed and could easily have been spell-checked by the computer, but were they? Noooooooo!)

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by emc » Sat May 04, 2013 3:42 pm

bystander wrote:[attachment=0]Horsehead_of_a_Different_Color.jpg[/attachment] Here you go ed, a "horsehead of a different color" avatar.
Thanks! I needed a new head!

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 3:37 pm

owlice wrote:Data is grates, and I'd edit that is were I editing text which used it.

If usage is what connotes what is correct, then Chris, your use of the English language is wildly incorrect where I live. I would not argue for the lowest common denominator here!
I wouldn't argue for the lowest common denominator, either. I argue for the greatest clarity. Usually, but not always, that is achieved through consensus usage. In some cases ("data" is a good example) there is no consensus. Nor is it always the case that there is just one usage that is "correct".

(Which particular usage of mine are you considering "wildly incorrect"?)

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by owlice » Sat May 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Data is grates, and I'd edit that is were I editing text which used it.

If usage is what connotes what is correct, then Chris, your use of the English language is wildly incorrect where I live. I would not argue for the lowest common denominator here!

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 3:17 pm

Anthony Barreiro wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:... English is incredibly fluid, incredibly versatile, and what is "right" is determined purely by common usage.
Fluid and versatile, yes. But it's an overstatement to say that a description of how most people speak or write is the only way to decide what is correct. Prescriptive grammar still has its advocates and its benefits, as someone who has pointed out the subtle difference between "more elliptical" and "more eccentric" might recognize. :wink:
One can certainly argue for a particular usage that provides greater clarity. But the bottom line remains: for English, what is correct is determined by usage. I'd wager that was is considered correct these days by even the most pedantic speakers would have been considered incorrect or unusual at some point in the past.

We can use our own usage in an effort to create change, as well. In most cases, I avoid using Latin plurals, and in astronomy I avoid using Latin genitives. This goes against the most common convention, but isn't strictly wrong... and perhaps my choice of usage will push the language a little in a different direction.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Anthony Barreiro » Sat May 04, 2013 2:44 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:... English is incredibly fluid, incredibly versatile, and what is "right" is determined purely by common usage.
Fluid and versatile, yes. But it's an overstatement to say that a description of how most people speak or write is the only way to decide what is correct. Prescriptive grammar still has its advocates and its benefits, as someone who has pointed out the subtle difference between "more elliptical" and "more eccentric" might recognize. :wink:

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by geckzilla » Sat May 04, 2013 2:23 pm

MargaritaMc wrote:
geckzilla wrote:This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.
Could we therefore usefully have a separate Grammar thread, into which such posts could go? Or be moved by administrators?
Threads sometimes naturally flow into other topics and it's not nice to split it in the absence of another conversation going on in parallel within the same thread. So, yes, sometimes it's appropriate and other times it's not.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Anthony Barreiro » Sat May 04, 2013 2:14 pm

geckzilla wrote:This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.
There are entire APOD threads that have been enriched by some detailed analyses of what is grammatically correct. :ssmile:

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by MargaritaMc » Sat May 04, 2013 2:10 pm

geckzilla wrote:This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.
Could we therefore usefully have a separate Grammar thread, into which such posts could go? Or be moved by administrators?

PS. Edit after reading Chris's post. I do agree that the discussions are useful - and perhaps, gathered together, could form a useful resource for speakers of English both as a first and as a second language.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 2:09 pm

geckzilla wrote:This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.
I wouldn't say "compromised". Many of those discussions have been very good. This is a forum populated by well educated, smart people, many with an interest in language. It is also quite international, with some excellent speakers of English as a secondary language. The occasional linguistic diversion strikes me as quite reasonable.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by geckzilla » Sat May 04, 2013 1:56 pm

This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 1:52 pm

MargaritaMc wrote:But - I did find the debate interesting... Pedant that I am. :D
An excellent rule that should be followed by anybody considering correcting somebody's English usage: check that what you believe to be the correct grammar or spelling really are, or that they really are the only acceptable options. Then, check again. English is incredibly fluid, incredibly versatile, and what is "right" is determined purely by common usage.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by MargaritaMc » Sat May 04, 2013 1:40 pm

rstevenson wrote:English are complex languages.

Rob
:lol2:
George Bernard Shaw
It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him. German and Spanish are accessible to foreigners: English is not accessible even to Englishmen.
But - I did find the debate interesting... Pedant that I am. :D
Margarita

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 04, 2013 1:39 pm

rstevenson wrote:English are complex languages.
Especially as she are spoke.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by rstevenson » Sat May 04, 2013 1:24 pm

English are complex languages.

Rob

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by neufer » Sat May 04, 2013 2:00 am

bystander wrote:
Anthony Barreiro wrote:
If the subject of this sentence is the plural noun "data", then the verb should be the plural verb "were", not the singular verb "was".
It is a collective noun and a singular verb is appropriate.
  • <<Many academic and scientific fields, as well as many publishers and newspapers,
    INSIST on the plural count noun use of data, as in "The data are compelling."
    >>
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-data-singular-or-plural.aspx wrote: Is "Data" Singular or Plural?
Episode 139: October 3, 2008
by [guest-writer] Charles Carson, managing editor of the journal American Speech

We've received several requests to address Latin plurals, so today we're going to tackle a tricky one. A listener called with this request:

Hi, Grammar Girl. This is Adam from Peoria. I was wondering if you could go over the usage of the word data, as in The data are correct or The data is correct. Thanks.

The question seems easy enough: is data singular or plural? Unfortunately, the answer is that both usages are standard (1). However, before we can address this fully, we need to review a couple of linguistic concepts.

Mass Nouns Versus Count Nouns

Count nouns are used for objects that can be counted; that is, they're distinct objects that can be numbered. For example, in my refrigerator there are eggs, apples, and lemons. These are all count nouns. Count nouns can be singular or plural, and when you use them as the subject of a sentence, the verb must correctly reflect that number, as in The last apple IS on the bottom shelf or The eggs ARE fresh.

Mass nouns, on the other hand, are used for things that don't have a natural boundary and can't be counted. Also in my fridge are butter, iced tea, and bacon. These are all mass nouns. Mass nouns always take a singular verb, as in The iced tea IS already sweetened and They say bacon IS bad for you, but I love it.*

How Many or How Much?

An easy way to tell these two types of nouns apart is to ask yourself how many or how much. If it makes sense to ask how many there are of a noun, as in how many cars or how many people, then it's a count noun. If, however, it makes more sense to ask how much there is of a noun, as in how much butter or how much rain, then it's a mass noun.†

The use of many and much parallels the use of fewer and less: many and fewer are used with count nouns (like items in a grocery cart) and much and less are used with mass nouns, like tea or bacon.

How Many Data or How Much Data?

Now let's get back to our original question, is data singular or plural? Or, more accurately, is data a mass noun — remember, a mass noun always takes a singular verb — or is data a count noun,‡ the plural of datum.§

As I said, both usages are standard. The count noun datum and its plural data, meaning "a given fact or assumption," were adopted from Latin into English by the 17th century (2); however, it wasn't till the late 19th century that data took on the modern sense of facts and figures. This shift in meaning also led some to start treating data as a mass noun.**

So if data is correct as both a count noun and as a mass noun, which should you use? It comes down to style and personal preference. Many academic and scientific fields, as well as many publishers and newspapers, still insist on the plural count noun use of data, as in The data are compelling, but it is more commonly used as a singular mass noun, as in The data is compelling.

If you write for an organization or discipline that insists on the plural count noun usage, pay attention to other words in the sentence that are sensitive to number. For example, an author might write the following sentence:

Much of this data is useless because of its lack of specifics.

If the publisher allows for the singular mass noun usage, that is an acceptable sentence. If, however, the publisher insists on the plural count noun usage, an author might change the verb is to are, making the sentence read as follows:

Much of this data are useless because of its lack of specifics.

That change, however, makes the sentence ungrammatical. Note that the author wrote MUCH of THIS data. Count nouns answer how many, not how much. It should be changed to MANY of THESE data. The sentence also reads because of ITS lack of specifics; the author here should use the plural pronoun their, because of THEIR lack of specifics. Thus, the correct sentence should be as follows:

Many of these data are useless because of their lack of specifics.

If that sounds odd to you, as it does to me, then you probably use data as a mass noun and would treat data as singular — and there's nothing wrong with that. Just be aware that if you do write or edit for a publisher or in a discipline that insists on plural data, you should make sure the surrounding words properly reflect the plural treatment of the word data. Even if you don't have a style guide insisting on the plural usage but you decide to use it anyway because you like Latin plurals, be sure to do it consistently throughout the document — in other words, don't mix up your datas, using it as a count noun in one place and as a mass noun in another.

A Quick and Dirty Way to Check Your Writing

Here's a quick and dirty tip to check your own use of data. If you wish to use data as a singular mass noun, you should be able to replace it in the sentence with the word information, which is also a mass noun. For example,

Much of this information is useless because of its lack of specifics.

If, however, you want to or need to use data as a plural count noun, you should be able to replace it with the word facts, which is also a plural count noun. For example,

Many of these facts are useless because of their lack of specifics.>>

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by bystander » Sat May 04, 2013 12:19 am

Anthony Barreiro wrote: If the subject of this sentence is the plural noun "data", then the verb should be the plural verb "were", not the singular verb "was".
It is a collective noun and a singular verb is appropriate.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by bystander » Fri May 03, 2013 11:59 pm

[attachment=0]Horsehead_of_a_Different_Color.jpg[/attachment] Here you go ed, a "horsehead of a different color" avatar.
Attachments
Horsehead of a <br />Different Color
Horsehead of a
Different Color
Horsehead_of_a_Different_Color.jpg (4.7 KiB) Viewed 2961 times

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by Anthony Barreiro » Fri May 03, 2013 11:54 pm

APOD Robot wrote: Explanation: Combined image data from the massive, ground-based VISTA telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope was used to create this wide perspective of the interstellar landscape surrounding the famous Horsehead Nebula. ...
If the subject of this sentence is the plural noun "data", then the verb should be the plural verb "were", not the singular verb "was".

This tiny grammatical quibble notwithstanding, this is an awesome image!

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by emc » Fri May 03, 2013 9:44 pm

neufer wrote:
Beyond wrote:
Here's the wider view I've got. It does look a little pink in seeing more of the horse.
Must be the way the light is reflecting in the wider view.
The horse shoes do look a little thick at the bottom of the nebulegs.
  • InfraPink? (Ed will want to know her IP address.)
All I can say is to repeat what Mrs. Ed said when she caught me gazing at Beyond’s pink girly horse with the nebulegs… “Astronomy, huh!” I tried explaining how Beyond is isolated in Beyonder Land and isolation can creep up on a fella… I was doin’ ok until she saw Art’s post… THANKS A LOT ART! You pretty well cut off my head… now Mrs. Ed is Furyious… I had to call her friend Flicka to calm her down.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by MargaritaMc » Fri May 03, 2013 7:33 pm

Today's Apod wrote:
... the tell-tale far red emission of energetic jets, known as Herbig-Haro objects ...
This is indirectly from a link on today's Apod, about Herbig-Haro objects.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Uploaded on Aug 31, 2011
In this episode of the Hubblecast, Joe Liske (aka Dr J) looks at newborn stars firing out jets of matter. These jets may cast new light on how the Sun formed 4.5 billion years ago.

An international team of scientists led by astronomer Patrick Hartigan of Rice University in Houston, USA, has collected enough high-resolution Hubble images over a 14-year period to stitch together time-lapse movies of these jets.

Credit:

ESA/Hubble, STScI
Margarita - who found this fascinating.

Re: APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

by MargaritaMc » Fri May 03, 2013 7:10 pm

I would be most grateful if someone would check my comprehension of this, please, taken from Dr Gendler's information about this image on his website
IR Filters:
J (1.25u) = Blue
H (1.635u) = Green
K (2.12u) = Red
Although I know that this gives information about how infrared wavelengths have been mapped to 'false' visual colours, and that the letters J, H, and K refer to the midpoint of the wave bands (? I'm not sure of the correct term) by their photometric letters, I would like to check that letter 'u' in these references means micrometres (e.g. "J (1.25u)"), the usual abbreviation of which is μm.

Many thanks
Margarita

PS. Robert Gendler's images are ALWAYS so magnificent, that I almost forgot to say so about this lovely, and informative image. And to thank him again for his skill and artistry.

Top