| გვერდების რაოდენობა თემაში: [1 2] > |
Plurals ...s or ...'s თემის ავტორი: Eileen Cartoon
|
|---|
I would really like to know which of these two is correct as the plural. When using initials or numers do you simply add an "s" as in any other english plural or do you add an appostrophe. The examples for both abound but which is actually correct?
747s or 747's
BOPs or BOP's
MDs or MD's
My instinct would say simply s but I have seen the apostrophe s in newspapers, journals, etc.
What is your take?
Thanks to all
Eileen
| | | |
Attila Piróth 
საფრანგეთი
Local time: 00:00
საიტის წევრი
ინგლისური -> უნგრული
+ ...
|
Neil Coffey
გაერთიანებული სამეფო
Local time: 23:00
ფრანგული -> ინგლისური
+ ...
| Stylistic decision | Jul 8, 2011 |
There's no *need* for the apostrophe.
But some editors/authors prefer to use an apostrophe with a plural in cases like this where you're not pluralising a "normal" word.
So it's really a question of what you think looks neater/clearer. There's an argument for not using the apostrophe these days in that pluralisation of "non-normal" words can be marked in other ways, for example if pluralising a letter of the alphabet, you can italicise the letter. With acronyms, you cou... See more There's no *need* for the apostrophe.
But some editors/authors prefer to use an apostrophe with a plural in cases like this where you're not pluralising a "normal" word.
So it's really a question of what you think looks neater/clearer. There's an argument for not using the apostrophe these days in that pluralisation of "non-normal" words can be marked in other ways, for example if pluralising a letter of the alphabet, you can italicise the letter. With acronyms, you could use a different font for the acronym. With numbers, the plural "s" is usually clear enough, but if you were using a font where the tops of numbers aligned with the tops of small letters, then it might be clearer to include the apostrophe.
[Edited at 2011-07-08 13:37 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
ATIL KAYHAN
თურქეთი
Local time: 02:00
წევრი (2007)
თურქული -> ინგლისური
+ ...
I agree with both Attila and Neil. Plurals are without the apostrophe. Apostrophe is used as possessive suffix. So, your plural examples become:
747s
BOPs
MDs
| | |
|
|
|
| just as I thought | Jul 8, 2011 |
In fact, I generally use the s but I got to wondering because I see it so often. The Greengrocers apostrophe is a really interesting link.
Thanks.
Eileen
| | | |
neilmac
ესპანეთი
Local time: 00:00
ესპანური -> ინგლისური
+ ...
How hard can it be to remember?
| | | |
neilmac
ესპანეთი
Local time: 00:00
ესპანური -> ინგლისური
+ ...
| Newspapers... pah humbug! | Jul 8, 2011 |
Eileen Cartoon wrote:
My instinct would say simply s but I have seen the apostrophe s in newspapers, journals, etc.
Thanks to all
Eileen
Over the past 30 years or so newspapers have become increasingly unreliable as a source of reference for almost anything. Even those once deemed "quality" broadsheets have gone the way of all flesh. Caveat emptor.
| | | |
ATIL KAYHAN
თურქეთი
Local time: 02:00
წევრი (2007)
თურქული -> ინგლისური
+ ...
I agree newspapers are not reliable at anything they publish. You only get what you pay for!
| | |
|
|
|
Neil Coffey
გაერთიანებული სამეფო
Local time: 23:00
ფრანგული -> ინგლისური
+ ...
| Note though... | Jul 8, 2011 |
There's a difference between the "greengrocer's 's" (or "greengrocers' 's", depending... involving a use of an aporstrophe as a plural such as "potato's", which is considered overtly "wrong" by pretty much anyone that has an opinion on the matter, and cases such as "3's" which aren't generally considered "wrong" as such, but rather a matter of style.
It's also worth remembering that our current norms on apostrophe use ... See more There's a difference between the "greengrocer's 's" (or "greengrocers' 's", depending... involving a use of an aporstrophe as a plural such as "potato's", which is considered overtly "wrong" by pretty much anyone that has an opinion on the matter, and cases such as "3's" which aren't generally considered "wrong" as such, but rather a matter of style.
It's also worth remembering that our current norms on apostrophe use are relatively new in the grand scheme of things (though that still means over a century old). So it's conceivable that you'll see some older documents/signs knocking around from a time when forms such as "potato's", "tomato's", "embargo's" were actually an acceptable way of writing these plurals.
[Edited at 2011-07-08 16:44 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
I've been wondering that for a while too, I couldn't figure why I was seeing so many apostrophes everywhere. Glad to see we all agree on this one
| | | |
Ambrose Li
კანადა
Local time: 18:00
ინგლისური
+ ...
Neil Coffey wrote:
There's no *need* for the apostrophe.
But some editors/authors prefer to use an apostrophe with a plural in cases like this where you're not pluralising a "normal" word.
So it's really a question of what you think looks neater/clearer. There's an argument for not using the apostrophe these days in that pluralisation of "non-normal" words can be marked in other ways, for example if pluralising a letter of the alphabet, you can italicise the letter. With acronyms, you could use a different font for the acronym. With numbers, the plural "s" is usually clear enough, but if you were using a font where the tops of numbers aligned with the tops of small letters, then it might be clearer to include the apostrophe.
[Edited at 2011-07-08 13:37 GMT]
Yes, this is the rule as I remember it. If only I could still find an actual printed reference somewhere.
The old rule is that if you are pluralizing something that is not a “normal” word, you have to add an apostrophe unless there is typographic distinction between the word and its ending.
I have a feeling that the apostrophes were gradually dropped when people who did not know the rule started typing copy the same way as they see them typeset in books—but without the typographic distinction.
Personally I think the old (or should I say archaic) apostrophe rule is way ahead of its times. If we had kept using the rule we would not be seeing typos like “CDS” or “FAQS” so often.
| | | |
Tom in London
გაერთიანებული სამეფო
Local time: 23:00
წევრი (2008)
იტალიური -> ინგლისური
|
|
|
Ambrose Li
კანადა
Local time: 18:00
ინგლისური
+ ...
I completely disagree with point 3 in the site.
| | | |
Tim Cleary
Local time: 23:00
ფრანგული -> ინგლისური
+ ...
| Apostrophes or not? | Jul 9, 2011 |
Personally, to be gramatically "correct", I would not use an apostrophe when forming a plural in the following cases:
(i) CDs (not CD's)
(ii) 747s (not 747's)
(iii) Ss (S's)
The apostrophe would be redundant and in certain cases may confuse the reader (who may think the apostrophe is being used to indicate that it is a possessive).
Of course, the only exception would be where a phrase in the source language was formed "incorrectly" and you wante... See more Personally, to be gramatically "correct", I would not use an apostrophe when forming a plural in the following cases:
(i) CDs (not CD's)
(ii) 747s (not 747's)
(iii) Ss (S's)
The apostrophe would be redundant and in certain cases may confuse the reader (who may think the apostrophe is being used to indicate that it is a possessive).
Of course, the only exception would be where a phrase in the source language was formed "incorrectly" and you wanted to preserve this idea in the translation (i.e. an initial source language error was intentional). For example, the French "Elle a dit: 'le vitesse des 747'" (gender error) could be rendered as "She said: 'the speed of 747's'" (redundant apostrophe).
[Edited at 2011-07-09 11:11 GMT]
[Edited at 2011-07-09 11:12 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Neil Coffey
გაერთიანებული სამეფო
Local time: 23:00
ფრანგული -> ინგლისური
+ ...
| The "old" way... | Jul 9, 2011 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
I have a feeling that the apostrophes were gradually dropped when people who did not know the rule started typing copy the same way as they see them typeset in books—but without the typographic distinction.
Personally I think the old (or should I say archaic) apostrophe rule is way ahead of its times. If we had kept using the rule we would not be seeing typos like “CDS” or “FAQS” so often.
I have a feeling it's more the other way round: if those attempting to define the "standard" for apostrophe use had come up with something more sensible and logical in the first place, then people might have been more inclined and naturally able to follow it. Instead, we insist on continuing with a standard that has been a mess of illogicality all along. Why on earth do we insist of this bizarre sadistic etiquette where the apostrophe marks possession and it is a major faux pas to omit it, while at the same time advancing the notion that it is also a major faux pas to write "it's" instead of "its" with the meaning of "of it". Why is it a major faux pas to write "who's" rather than "whose"? Why is it a major faux pas to write "would've" rather than "would have"? Indeed, why have the same piece of punctuation to denote 3 separate things: (1) missing phonetic material currently perceived of as 'missing' or 'abbreviated' by native speakers, (2) phonetic material historically created by a shortening but not simply perceived as a different word by native speakers, and (3) possession? -- are we really unimaginitive enough not to be able to invent dinstinct means of marking these different phenomena? And where is the study showing that they really need marking in the first place?
| | | |
| გვერდების რაოდენობა თემაში: [1 2] > |
Login to reply/comment 
