Are you Verbally Enlightened ?

Here's another example of an editor (professional, presumably) of a weekly mag who acts a bit wild with the English language. The issue* was in mid-June this year, and his 'editorial' mentioned a meeting of the "Bilderberg Group of business and political big hitters" in Watford. Since the details of their meetings remain secret, they are "open to accusations of being part of a shadowy illuminati keen to usher in lizard-people dominance".

Now the term illuminati is a Latin word, and it is plural, and we use it to mean (whether straightforwardly or sarcastically) "those who are enlightened".  You could (grammatically) have a single illuminatus, but several together must be, plurally, illuminati.  Just as we speak and write in English of 'one man' or 'many men', but not 'a single men';  so "a shadowy illuminati" is plain wrong**.  This is another (see the previous post below) apparent instance of a writer not completely at home with the terms he is using.

But that's not all.  In his next paragraph the editor writes "Big data is controlled by several big businesses".  If he wants the term 'big data' to represent the name, whether actual or implied, of something, then it should have capital initials ('Big Data') to indicate the fact.  In which case it would be OK to write "Big Data is controlled".  But "big data" are plural.  Data is the plural of Latin datum, meaning a 'given thing', a given fact.  Data are facts supplied to enable decisions or actions to be taken.

Once again, beware of unusual or foreign words:  they can be stumbling blocks for linguistic non-illuminati.

*  In one of its standard older meanings

** Illuminatus /-i is derived from Latin lumen/-ina meaning light: so 'a shadowy illuminati' is a mix of metaphors as well as grammatically wrong. Mind you, 'shadowy illuminati' could be a deliberate wry joke; but I doubt that it is intended here.

Are you Verbally Enlightened ?