Singulars and plurals: they’re usually really easy to differentiate, but sometimes they make you look like you’re not in command of your native language.
The most common one I hear in a business context is ‘criteria’. It catches folk out all the time. You see, criteria is a plural, and it’s not the kind of plural you can use in a singular context, like ‘data’ for example. You often hear criteria coupled with ‘success’, a popular entry in bullsh*t bingo.
So you have one criterion, from the Latin criterium and before that the old Greek kriterion, and you have multiple criteria from the Latin – you guessed it – criteria. Data has the same latin origins, but it’s so much part of our everyday language that it’s morphed into a collective singular noun and it’s quite acceptable to say ‘the data is awful’ for example.
Not so with criteria. You’ll hear even senior people in an organisation saying ‘which particular success criteria is the most important?’, which gives them away. Of course, mine’s the stiffer upper lip British diagnosis of the word. In other English-speaking territories, they’ve taken a slightly more lenient view. Then again you’ll sometimes hear people talk about the many criterias you can select from, yikes…
And — as a sporting man yourself — what about where the opposite is used: a latin singular, incorrectly pluralised, as in the horrendous constant use of ‘stadiums’ instead of stadia? I abhor that. Also, in my line of work, on construction sites we are often forced to use the vernacular ‘datums’ as a plural of a datum – a horizontal surface of reference, because to do otherwise would point you out as an idiot!
I’m sure there are even more common errors of this type, used daily in every English-speaking corner of the globe…
LikeLike
Excellent contribution Andy. I wrote a while back about the difference between spoken and written English, and stadiums is an example of the spoken English coming to the fore. Stadiums feels more logical and less ‘posh’, for want of a better word. You also hear rostrums instead of rostra, and a historical perspective instead of a historical perspective, for the same reasons IMO.
LikeLike
I think a typo/auto-correct fouled your last point there, mate: but where you talking about the “a” vs “an” debate when talking about something beginning with ‘aitch’?
If so I’d be keen to hear you expand on that.
I quite like “an historic event”, but I’m not sure I actually use it out loud(?).
LikeLike
Yeah, sorry, was looking to say ‘a historical perspective instead of an historical perspective’. Add an ‘n’ before words like hour and heraldic, that’s worth another post in its own right I’d say. Not sure I could expand on it without some research…
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Ed sodding Milliband has caused repeated use of the word “referendums” in the spoken AND written press today! Grrrr…
LikeLike
Referendums is just plain dum :-).
LikeLike