Parenthetical suffixes
James Robinson
parenthesizing the suffixes of a word to show that the word can be singular or
plural. For instance, in some cases, an author might want to write book(s), to
explicitly show that the sentence can refer to one or more books.
But how about cases when the plural of the word isn't formed simply by adding
an "s"? For instance, if an author wanted to explictly show that one or more
abilities could be involved in a task, he might want to write: "The abilit(-y)
(-ies) that were involved in this task were unclear." Would this be correct?
Thanks in advance.
JR
N.Mitchum
------
> Can anybody give me the ground rules - if there are any - to use when
> parenthesizing the suffixes of a word to show that the word can be singular or
> plural. For instance, in some cases, an author might want to write book(s), to
> explicitly show that the sentence can refer to one or more books.
Where do you plan to use this shortcut style of writing? If
you're writing for the Internet, where there's a great deal more
slackness, you can get away with this use of parentheses, and a
good deal more besides. If it's for schoolwork or any sort of
publication, however, you'd best stay away from it entirely:
either work around the problem, or just bite the bullet and
provide the complete phrase. (For instance you might leave out
the reference to books and use "write" instead, leaving the number
undefined; or you might go right ahead and say "one or more
books.")
-----
> But how about cases when the plural of the word isn't formed simply by adding
> an "s"? For instance, if an author wanted to explictly show that one or more
> abilities could be involved in a task, he might want to write: "The abilit(-y)
> (-ies) that were involved in this task were unclear." Would this be correct?
>.....
No, it would not be correct, not even by Internet standards. This
also points up why it's better simply to avoid such clumsy
constructions -- they may save space and keystrokes here and
there, but in the end they're sure to betray you. Tricky
punctuation is no substitute for intelligent writing.
----NM
Davidson
where space is at a premium. I don't see this construction used in
normal prose writing.
Robert Lieblich
[It helps subsequent posters to quote a bit of the prior posting, which
asked about the use of alternative suffixes in parentheses -- examples:
"book(s)," "activit(y)(ies)."]
I join others in recommending against this in all but the most informal
sort of writing, and I'd never commit something like "activit(e)(ies)"
in any context (other than when quoting someone else). There has to be
a less ugly way of saying what needs saying.
But such constructions do pop up frequently in the writing of US
Government employees, particularly in the military. They's just as ugly
there, but much more common than you might realize if you aren't
yourself a Fed.
Bob Lieblich
M.J.Powell
>I join others in recommending against this in all but the most informal
>sort of writing, and I'd never commit something like "activit(e)(ies)"
>in any context (other than when quoting someone else). There has to be
>a less ugly way of saying what needs saying.
Is it really possible to 'recommend against'?
I would 'deplore the use of..'
--
Mike The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours.
Robert Lieblich
>
> >
> >I join others in recommending against this in all but the most informal
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >sort of writing, and I'd never commit something like "activit(e)(ies)"
> >in any context (other than when quoting someone else). There has to be
> >a less ugly way of saying what needs saying.
>
> Is it really possible to 'recommend against'?
>
> I would 'deplore the use of..'
Well, it's not unique to me. I'd say that at a minimum it's a lawyerism
in the US, but it's probably more broadly used than that. Alta Vista
reported 3,701 instances, but I didn't sample them.
I don't think it's really necessary to deplore the use of "recommend
against."
Bob Lieblich