Be Careful with the -a Team
The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation
Be Careful with the -a Team
The first letter of the alphabet is also a common English word that is virtually synonymous with one. As a word, a is the very antithesis of plurality.
This might help explain why there’s so much confusion about a group of words that I call “the -a team.” Here they are: bacteria, criteria, data, media, phenomena, Sierra. As you can see, all end in the letter a, which just sounds so darned singular that these words continue to confound even careful writers and speakers. Because the fact is, they’re all plural.
Bacteria Staphylococcus is a virulent form of bacteria. No problem there, but Staphylococcus is a virulent bacteria, well, now we have a problem. The singular is bacterium. So a sentence like The bacteria in the cut was infecting it is flawed—the bacteria were infecting it.
Criteria It’s the plural of criterion, a standard used for judging, deciding, or acting. The sentence Honesty is our chief criteria is ungrammatical; there can’t be only one criteria. Make it Honesty is our chief criterion or Honesty is one of our chief criteria. Your criteria are your standards, plural.
Those who know that criteria is plural aren’t out of the woods yet either: many believe the singular is “criterium.” And there are some who will reveal to you their “criterias.”
Data John B. Bremner, in Words on Words, states unequivocally, “The word is plural.” This one is thorny, because the singular, datum, is virtually nonexistent in English. Many people see data as a synonym for information, and to them, These data are very interesting sounds downright bizarre. Maybe, but it’s also correct. English scholar Theodore M. Bernstein says, “Some respected and learned writers have used data as a singular. But a great many more have not.”
Media Among the language’s most abused words is media, a plural noun; medium is the singular. A medium is a system of mass communication: The medium of television is a prominent component of the mass media.
Every day we hear and read statements like The media is irresponsible or The media has a hidden agenda. In those sentences, media should be followed by are and have.
There are some who prefer and defend the media is and the media has. To them, the various means of mass communication—newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, blogs, etc.—make up one “media.”
But writers should insist on the media are. It’s important that people think of the media as many voices, opinions, and perspectives rather than one monolithic entity.
Phenomena This troublemaker baffles even articulate speakers. Phenomena is plural; phenomenon is singular.
“Management is a universal phenomenon,” declares a business website. But a commentator on national television had it exactly backward. He spoke of “the phenomena of climate change” and later used phenomenon as a plural. Others say “phenomenas” when they mean phenomena.
Sierra Avoid “Sierras” when the topic is the vast California mountain range. An online camping guide says, “Translating from Spanish, sierra is plural in itself.” The Sierra Nevada Alliance, a conservation organization, elaborates: “The Sierra Nevada is a single, distinct unit, both geographically and topographically, and is well described by una sierra nevada. Strictly speaking, therefore, we should never pluralize the name—such as Sierras, or Sierra Nevadas, or even High Sierras …”
“Strictly speaking,” you say? What a concept!
—Tom Stern
If the article or the existing discussions do not address a thought or question you have on the subject, please use the "Comment" box at the bottom of this page.
I enjoy GrammarBook.com because it raises some excellent questions; but I have my own questions about some of your “answers.”
Take the “-a Team” column (6-10-14): “Here they are: bacteria, criteria, data, media, phenomena, Sierra…..the fact is, they’re all plural.”
The fact is, they’re not—as you yourself observe in your note on Sierra: “The Sierra Nevada…..is well described by una sierra nevada.” Which is clearly singular: it means “a snowy saw” (the mountain peaks look serrated from a distance).
And it would have been helpful to distinguish the Greek words (criteria, phenomena) from the Latin (data, media)—bacteria has both a Latin singular (bacterium, as you say) but also a Greek singular (bacterion, as you don’t)—because they follow different rules.
You’re quite right to stress that “Honesty is our chief criteria” makes little grammatical sense (though its meaning is quite clear). But to insist on “Your criteria are your standards” is strangely dogmatic.
You may have forgotten your Greek Grammar and the fact that in Greek (Attic, at least—Ionic Homer sometimes nods, and the New Testament koine can be wobbly) all neuter plural nouns, like criteria and phenomena, take a singular verb. It seems that the Greeks thought of neuter plurals, which are usually abstracts—good things, bad things, apparent things (phenomena), judgmental things (criteria)—as a singular collective and so accorded them a singular verb.
I would argue that as long as we’re borrowing Greek nouns, why not borrow their trappings as well? If you’re stealing a Ferrari, steal the Ferrari engine too.
This doesn’t apply to Latin plurals like data and media: all Latin plurals take plural verbs. But that concept of a neuter plural as a singular entity—the Romans knew their Greek—survives in a curious Latin phenomenon (!). Many feminine singular abstract nouns (temperantia, innocentia, constantia, experientia, distantia, prudentia, etc.—whose English derivatives end in -ce or -cy) began life as the neuter plurals of present participles: innocentia = things doing no harm; distantia = things standing apart. These plurals, in turn, become the singular concept of doing no harm (innocence) and of standing apart (distance).
[There remains the question of why did these neuter plurals become feminine singulars (both end in -a). Why do we personify them as women? Why does Vergil, in his great lines on the maleficence of Rumor, choose not the masculine word rumor but the feminine word fama? And why (until recently) were all hurricanes given female names? (Now you may be flooded by Hurricane Aloysius, Beowulf, Cuthbert, Dwayne…..)]
So it’s easy to see why we almost instinctively regard the neuter plurals data and media as singular concepts and—with a nod to Greek—use them with a singular verb. [And in a sentence like “The media is to blame for school shootings,” we are not being invited to consider each of the mediums individually: media has become a singular collective.]
And what about agenda and propaganda? These, too, are neuter plurals, so that your example of “The media has a hidden agenda” is wrong by your rules. You can’t have “an agenda” (which means “things to be done”). (But I can, as I accept agenda as a freshly-accoutered feminine singular: my agenda is quite clear, whereas your agenda are bound to be murky.) Is propaganda seditious, or are they?
Oh, (you say) “many believe the singular [of criteria] is criterium.” Well, it can be. A criterium is a kind of bicycle race; and though it is derived from French, the French word comes from the Greek and sometimes borrows the Greek plural (criteria). But it’s safer to go with criteriums: in fact it’s always safer to add -s/-es to Greek and Latin words, lest you betray your ignorance of those languages and commit a linguistic no-no (like hiati for hiatuses). But to insist on octopodes is just showing off: octopuses will do nicely, thank you—octopi brands you a pretentious ignoramus (whose plural should not be ignorami).
And I wonder if it helps your case to cite random “authorities” like John B. Bremner who “states unequivocally ‘the word [data] is plural’,” or “English scholar”—ambiguous phrase—Theodore M. Bernstein who harrumphs, “Some respected and learned writers have used data as a singular. But a great many more have not.” Cf. Galileo: “Some respected and learned scientists have said the earth is round and orbits the sun. But a great many more have not.” As for having numbers on your side, remember that the lone dissenter (Barbara Lee) in the Great Congress Vote after 9-11 turned out to be the lone voice of sanity.
These pronunciamentos may sound Olympian; but their authors, like Strunk & White before them, are just soi-disant “mavens” who like to hear themselves opine. (Grammaryans? Grammarms?). [I have a typical Bernstein book before me, some of it plain wrong: he dishes out arbitrary judgments (a usage is “vulgar,” the user “illiterate”) with a smug certitude that borders on hubris.] They’re not linguists in the professional sense: in their prescriptivist/proscriptivist fervor they seem not to have heard of the New Linguists, who study language as it has developed and as it is actually used—I’m thinking of Steven Pinker, David Crystal, John McWhorter, and the Geoffreys Nunberg & Pullum (how often do you quote them?). [Pinker dismisses the Safire & Bernstein Brigade as “malicious know-nothings”; Pullum writes of Strunk & White’s “toxic little compendium of bad grammatical advice.”]
I would like to see in your columns less of the grammar-&-stickle approach and more open-minded curiosity about why Grammar & Usage change. Yes, Grammar changes (or at least our understanding of it does: we now accept “It is I” and “This is she” and “Whom shall I say is calling?” as Latin-driven instances of hypercorrectitude; and “between you and I” is now both idiomatic and grammatically defensible). Bernstein, for instance, automatically/unthinkingly condemns the “misspelled” miniscule for the “proper” minuscule (obviously, people now link minuscule not with majuscule but with miniskirt and miniseries). In fact, we have absorbed lots of “misspellings” into the language—rhyme, island, umpire, apron, aneurism, ukelele, comradery, economics, pediatrician, lasagna, fettuccini/fettucini/fettucine, apothegm, chaise lounge, just desserts (I’m waiting for supercede and sacreligious and millenium)—so much so that the “correct” spellings now seem wrong and may expose you to unkind comment if you use them. The interesting question is not how wrong can you be but how did such things come about. For there is no changing them back; and to insist on “correcting” them is as fruitless and foolhardy as it is false.
We should have been clearer about “Sierra.” Our point was only that “Sierras” is considered a solecism by many.
You are a man of impressive knowledge. For us here at GrammarBook.com, our grasp of Greek and Latin is dim and growing dimmer. We were raised in the era of Fowler, Bremner, Bernstein, Follett, Barzun, et al. Where you see querulous fuddy-duddies, we see brilliant traditionalists with twinkles in their eyes.
As a stickler in grammar…realizing I’m older than dirt…the rules seem to have changed since I was in the learning process.
For instance…the rule used to be for a (collective) noun…was used in a singular sense…i.e.’the MEDIA is ……not the MEDIA are?…..Media being plural but being used in a singular sense because it is collective.
Also….Jesus is singular and plural…..NEVER should ‘ Jesus ‘ have ‘es’ added…..
Correct me if I’m wrong……I had a fabulous grammar teacher in high school in the 50’s…so I cringe when I hear…’the media are’….even though media is plural….or Jesus’es…rather than Jesus’ ( when expressing a plural context.
We appreciate grammar sticklers of all ages. Sometimes the rules change over time, and sometimes the concepts just get a little hazy.
The word media is not a collective noun, it is a plural noun. In scientific contexts and in reference to mass communications, the plural of medium is media. For example, some bacteria flourish in several types of media; the media are now issuing reports of unrest. Please see our blogs Subject and Verb Agreement with Collective Nouns, Collective Nouns and Consistency, and These Nouns Present Singular Problems for information about collective nouns.
The name Jesus is usually not plural unless you are writing about several different people with the name Jesus. In that case, one might write The Jesuses in my class all came here from Mexico. There are conflicting policies and theories about how to show possession when writing nouns that end in s. Some writers and editors add only an apostrophe to all nouns ending in s. And some add an apostrophe + s. Therefore Jesus’ name and Jesus’s name are both grammatically correct as possessive proper nouns, but not as plurals.
I am confused about the use of bacteria.
” Bacteria is/are of many kinds”
what should i use?
Just as we used it in the post, the word bacteria is the plural form of bacterium. Your sentence is unusual. It may be better to say “There are many kinds of bacteria.”
I have been frustrated – and disappointed – to hear so many professional speakers and communicators adopt the (mis)use of “data” and “media” as singular nouns. Professional media persons themselves have been the most obvious sell-outs to what had been, up until maybe a year ago, a regrettably common error most often heard in casual, popular speech. If news anchors, politicians, and other professional, on-air personalities have sold out to the popular misuse of these plural forms, who will model correct grammar and a proper respect for the language for younger viewers? Feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation. I have a thing about getting things correct myself.