databases (was: Re: [Buddha-l] Tibetan for...?)

[Richard Hayes]

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 18:23 -0700, jkirk wrote:

> Recently Stephen Hodge suggested that 'datumbase'  would be the correct 
> form, not 'database,' which is used in the software industry. However, that 
> would work if there were only one item in the base.

Stephen is correct. Compounds are usually formed by stripping all case
and number markers from the first member of the compound. (There are
exceptions, as in aatmanepadam and manasikaara.h.) So we say
"toothbrush" even though most people use the brush on more than one
tooth, "keyring" even when more than one key is on the ring,
"eyeglasses" even when the glasses are used for more than one eye,
"classroom" even when more than one class is taught in the room,
"postoffice" even when there is more than one post in the office,
"buddha-l" even though there are several buddhas in every 'L'. You get
the idea. "Database" is a hideous barbarism, and everyone who uses the
word is clearly a semi-literate troglodyte. Or, if you go for letting
people get away wih linguistic murder, you could say, as Stephen did,
that "data" has entered the english language as a new word that happens
to be a mass noun rather than a count noun. Such things do happen. But
NOT on buddha-l. We are pedants here, and each of us likes to fleck our
intellectual bicep. 


-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
Universiy of New Mexico