adding the s at the end
seefu...@hotmail.com
I'd appreciate advice on best practice for adding an s to an abbreviation to
indicate a plural.
For example, we abbreviate Standard Operating Procedure to SOP.
What is most correct and what is acceptable?
1. Standard operating procedures
2. SOPs
3. SOP's
Thanks for your help.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Patronius
>What is most correct and what is acceptable?
>
>1. Standard operating procedures
>
>2. SOPs
>
>3. SOP's
The Chicago Manual of Style recommends 2 whenever possible (as it is here).
But 3 is permissible whenever 2 might be confusing.
Patrick Carroll
patr...@aol.com
seefu...@hotmail.com
In article <199805270155...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patr...@aol.com (Patronius) wrote:
> The Chicago Manual of Style recommends 2 whenever possible (as it is here).
> But 3 is permissible whenever 2 might be confusing.
Thanks heaps.
Bill McCray
On Wed, 27 May 1998 00:07:18 GMT, seefu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I'd appreciate advice on best practice for adding an s to an abbreviation to
>indicate a plural.
>
>For example, we abbreviate Standard Operating Procedure to SOP.
>
>What is most correct and what is acceptable?
>
>1. Standard operating procedures
>
>2. SOPs
>
>3. SOP's
>
As Patronius (hope I spelled that right) has said, number 3 is
preferred. Why? It is a plural, neither a possessive nor a
contraction.
Bill
Serenleono
tob...@mis.net (Bill McCray) scripsit:
>>1. Standard operating procedures
>>
>>2. SOPs
>>
>>3. SOP's
>As Patronius (hope I spelled that right) has said, number 3 is
>preferred. Why? It is a plural, neither a possessive nor a contraction.
Perhaps I'm overlooking an occurrence of subtle and esoteric humour
here (or perhaps it's merely a typo), but I believe Patronius
recommended No. 2 as the preferred choice "whenever possible" and No.
3 only when No. 2 "might be confusing." I agree with that
recommendation.
I personally prefer to *not* use an apostrophe to indicate plurality
unless in the case of an abbreviation which includes periods (as in
"four V.P.'s were present at the meeting") or where a single letter is
indicated in the plural (such as "five A's and seven e's").
--
Seren
La Serenleono (the Serene Lion)
Desmond Koene
On Wed, 27 May 1998 00:07:18 GMT, in alt.english.usage you wrote:
>I'd appreciate advice on best practice for adding an s to an abbreviation to
>indicate a plural.
>
>For example, we abbreviate Standard Operating Procedure to SOP.
>
>What is most correct and what is acceptable?
>
>1. Standard operating procedures
>
>2. SOPs
This would be correct.
>
>3. SOP's
This would be a genitive!
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
On Wed, 27 May 1998 00:07:18 GMT, seefu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>I'd appreciate advice on best practice for adding an s to an abbreviation to
>indicate a plural.
>
>For example, we abbreviate Standard Operating Procedure to SOP.
>
>What is most correct and what is acceptable?
>
>1. Standard operating procedures
>
>2. SOPs
>
>3. SOP's
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
================================================================
Have a great day!
Desmond Koene
e-mail: dko...@wxs.nl
web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8544/
http://www.members.tripod.com/~dkoene/
http://www.fortunecity/skyscraper/parallax/301/
================================================================
Primary School St. Willibrord
Oranjelaan 96
2161 KH Lisse
tel.: 0252-414101
the Netherlands
================================================================
Bill McCray
On Sun, 31 May 1998 11:47:34 GMT, ve...@mindspring.com (Serenleono)
wrote:
>tob...@mis.net (Bill McCray) scripsit:
>
>>>1. Standard operating procedures
>>>
>>>2. SOPs
>>>
>>>3. SOP's
>
>>As Patronius (hope I spelled that right) has said, number 3 is
>>preferred. Why? It is a plural, neither a possessive nor a contraction.
>
>Perhaps I'm overlooking an occurrence of subtle and esoteric humour
>here (or perhaps it's merely a typo), but I believe Patronius
>recommended No. 2 as the preferred choice "whenever possible" and No.
>3 only when No. 2 "might be confusing." I agree with that
>recommendation.
No, no, and (yes). It was a typo. I agree with both of you. I was
trying to give a reason for preferring 2 over 3, but my fingers didn't
cooperate when I typed the number. Thanks for calling my attention to
the typo.
Bill
Bill McCray
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:57:57 GMT, dko...@wxs.nl (Desmond Koene) wrote:
>>
>>2. SOPs
>This would be correct.
I have been seeing and hearing this construction a lot lately, but it
seems to be wrong to me. The "would be" conveys a sense of being
conditional - "If I were half my age, I would be nearly 28." So
when you say "This would be correct", I'm left wondering under what
conditions. So why did you write that rather than "This is correct",
which is what I would have, uh, which I expected?
Bill
Opinicus
Bill McCray wrote in message
<357315e...@netnews.mis.net>...
> >This would be correct.
>I have been seeing and hearing this construction a lot lately,
but it
>seems to be wrong to me. The "would be" conveys a sense of
being
>conditional - "If I were half my age, I would be nearly 28."
So
>when you say "This would be correct", I'm left wondering under
what
>conditions.
was."
Unspoken conditionals are sometimes a form of deference;
sometimes they show a a lack of confidence.
You know?
Bob
Istanbul
---
To reply by email, dot the dash in doruk-net.
Patronius
> >This would be correct.
>
>I have been seeing and hearing this construction a lot lately, but it
>seems to be wrong to me. The "would be" conveys a sense of being
>conditional - "If I were half my age, I would be nearly 28." So
>when you say "This would be correct", I'm left wondering under what
>which is what I would have, uh, which I expected?
I didn't write it, but I'll comment anyway. It does seem to be a pretty recent
fad. My 13-year-old nephew is always using "would be" in this way. Seems to
me there's usually a tone of sarcasm involved: the speaker is "softening"
something that he secretly feels is pretty obvious.
Example: "Oh, I'm sorry. You're in high school now, aren't you?" "Uh, that
would be correct." (Translation: "Duh!")
Patrick Carroll
patr...@aol.com