Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm not kidding about the plural "datums" it seems peculiar to surveying, and I'm dithering over how best to note this. In the mean time here's an Introduction to Geodetic Datums by by Peter H. Dana, Department of Geography, University of Texas at Austin, 1995.

Note that this usage is countable, in contrast to the usually derided (yet overwhelmingly prevalent) uncountable usages such as "this data shows ..." -dmh 02:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A definition must identify a phenomenon without errors of inclusion or exclusion, and be as intrinsic as possible. The term datum must not be take as an appendix to information, since it composes the concept of information and, as such, cannot be taken as the whole, while being a part of it.

A definition on Wiktionary must be written in grammatically correct English, and ideally should be understandable. A definition that cannot be understood has no value as a definition. --EncycloPetey 08:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am seeing it (in technical literature) as a verb: i.e., "datuming". Kortoso (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Latin Noun[edit]

@JohnC5, Metaknowledge, I'm so meta even this acronym I was wondering if this Latin definition is real? Isomorphyc (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: “datum” on page 485/2 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82) has “That which is given, a present; a debit.” with seven citations. I believe it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Thanks, I appreciate it; I don't have a copy of OLD here, but it turns out to be in De Vaan too from Plautus forward. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Isomorphyc: You're welcome. The OLD has the Plautus citation, which it presents as “non suppetunt dictis ⁓a Pl.As.56”, which, expanded, becomes “non suppetunt dictis data Titus Maccius Plautus Asinaria 56”. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Thanks; I've added this quotation. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Isomorphyc: Thank you. Plautus is technically Old Latin (itc-ola), but in the absence of an Old Latin entry, a quotation from him is far better than none at all. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Thanks; unfortunately our periodisation in Latin is a bit of a muddle. Isomorphyc (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Isomorphyc: What do you mean? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: By `in the absence of an Old Latin entry...,' did you indeed mean you would like to treat Old Latin as a separate language? I could possibly understand doing this for Ennius, but less so for Plautus. My largest personal cavil with our periodisation is that we do not normally distinguish Golden Age and Silver Age vocabulary and usage, that the LL. and ML. labels are often omitted, and that occasionally reconstructions make their way into Latin entries. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Isomorphyc: I understand what you mean now. FWIW, Old Latin is treated as a separate language on the English Wiktionary; we had a vote on it. Old Latin has the code itc-ola (Italic [the language family] + Old Latin), whereas Classical Latin onward has the ISO-639 code la. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)