Some challenging e-mail about that item came from Dennis Moran, assistant business editor of the Prague Post. "English borrows copiously if incompletely," he wrote, noting such Associated Press style preferences as "referendums" and "stadiums" (not the Latin plurals "referenda" and "stadia"). Amen to those, and to "curriculums," rather than the pompous "curricula" still widely favored in academic circles.

I disagree for two reasons.

1. I don't think the change came about as a result of bringing those originally borrowed words into line with standard English pluralization rules. I understand the argument for doing so, since English becomes muddy if we start having to apply foreign (or extinct) rules to all borrowed words. In other words, even though "stadium" comes to us from latin, it's not latin anymore, it's english, and should be treated as such when pluralized (thus, "stadiums"). Nonetheless, I don't hear that argument directly. Rather, I hear that the changes are to prevent confusion (which, yes, indirectly argues against confusing additional rules) but I'm generally against modifying language to cater to ignorance. Call me elitist, but I think it's preferable to keep usages that have long been in practice, but require some education of the reader. I can't help being plagued by visions of "lite" replacing "light" because "gosh, the 'gh' is confusing and 'lite' is more common". This sends me into fits of apoplexy.

2. It sounds dumb. A trailing 'ms' is inelegant and unpleasant to say. "The referenda were universally rejected." flows so much better than "The referendums were ..." Perhaps I'm giving my inner aesthete too much rein, but I think elegance is worth preserving in language.

Am I expected to contemplate "datums" or should we just decide to allow everyone to use "data" as if it were singular?

Never.