Abbreviation of Ounces
Klaus Hoelscher
I wonder what the correct abbreviation for ounces is:
a) 2.7 oz
b) 2.7 ozs
c) 2.7 ozs.
Thanks for your thoughts...
Klaus
Carmen L. Abruzzi
Klaus Hoelscher wrote:
> Good morning!
Good Morning! and Happy Labor Day (celebrated)!
>
> I wonder what the correct abbreviation for ounces is:
>
> a) 2.7 oz
> b) 2.7 ozs
> c) 2.7 ozs.
No, none are right. There's no "2.7" involved in abbreviating
"ounces". ]
Other than that, it is not usual to add the "s" to the end of the "oz"
.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts...
>
> Klaus
I wanna pony, and I been a good boy.
Mark Brader
>> a) 2.7 oz
Correct in Britain.
>> b) 2.7 ozs
>> c) 2.7 ozs.
Wrong.
Correct in North America: (d) 2.7 oz.
Fred G.:
> oz. or fl. oz.
If "ounces" is being used to mean "fluid ounces", as is often done
informally, *then* fl.oz. is correct (or fl oz in Britain).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This man must be very ignorant, for he answers
m...@vex.net | every question he is asked." -- Voltaire
Bob Cunningham
<do...@karldeutsch.de> said:
> I wonder what the correct abbreviation for ounces is:
> a) 2.7 oz
> b) 2.7 ozs
> c) 2.7 ozs.
Your question involves two things: (1) Is the "s" used with
the abbreviation to show plural number, and (2) Is there a
period (point? dot? stop?) after the abbreviation?
To the first of them, the _New Shorter Oxford_ implies the
answer is no, with the definition
oz. = [...] ounce(s)
As for the period after the abbreviation, we've been told
that British practice is to not use it, but the above
example from a British dictionary seems to contradict that
information.
As part of my rebellion against certain American punctuation
rules that I greatly dislike, I avoid periods wherever
possible. After abbreviations I think they introduce
somewhat unsightly clutter and perform no essential
function. So I would write
2.7 fl oz
but I would expect an American style guides to say to write
2.7 fl. oz.
Ray Heindl
> As for the period after the abbreviation, we've been told
> that British practice is to not use it, but the above
> example from a British dictionary seems to contradict that
> information.
My understanding, such as it is, of the UKan full-stop-after-
abbreviations policy is that the period is omitted only when the
abbreviation ends with the last letter of the word; e.g., "Mr" for
Mister, "Dr" for Doctor. By that logic "oz." would be correct, since Z
is not the last letter of "ounce".
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)
Mike Lyle
Yes, but it replaces the full stop. In fact, I think it was invented
before the full stop became the rule. My understanding is that the z
isn't really a z, but a flourish which happened to look rather
zeddish in manuscript.
--
Mike.
eromlignod
I think you're right. It's one of the apothecaries' symbols along with
that for drams and scruples. See them here:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/tcp/docs/dox/medical.html
They may seem archaic, but I remember as a child having a bottle of
prescription cough syrup that had symbols like this molded into the
glass bottle. This was in the late Sixties.
Don
Kansas City
Mike Lyle
I liked those meticulous units, the handful, the half-handful, and
the little handful!
--
Mike.
Bob Cunningham
But isn't there something about mensuration units not being
abbreviations but symbols, so they don't take the full stop?
Paul Wolff
<exw...@earthlink.net> writes
thread, I'm brought crashing down to earth by a total lack of recall of
the subject matter that was handled under mensuration in the maths
books. Measurement of some kind, but what were the units you speak of?
Common-or-garden "in" and "cm"? If so, you are probably right, as they
are defined by agreement among the powers that be, and their having
started out as abbreviations is not decisive. Trig functions aren't
dotted either.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
CyberCypher
> Good morning!
>
> I wonder what the correct abbreviation for ounces is:
>
> a) 2.7 oz
> b) 2.7 ozs
> c) 2.7 ozs.
The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed., says that the singular and
plural of English measures are "identical", so 1 oz. and 2.1 oz. would
be the way to do it.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl wrote:
>> My understanding, such as it is, of the UKan full-stop-after-
>> abbreviations policy is that the period is omitted only when the
>> abbreviation ends with the last letter of the word; e.g., "Mr" for
>> Mister, "Dr" for Doctor. By that logic "oz." would be correct,
>> since Z is not the last letter of "ounce".
> Yes, but it replaces the full stop. In fact, I think it was invented
> before the full stop became the rule. My understanding is that the z
> isn't really a z, but a flourish which happened to look rather
> zeddish in manuscript.
The RHUD and MWCD-11 say it's an abbreviation of the Italian "onza",
which I suppose would make it a common-or-garden-variety Z.
R H Draney
But an *italic* Z, at the very least....r