's for plural?
lefleau
plural (not possessive)? I'm thinking of examples like these:
- There are two James's at work. (Or "keeping up with the Jones's".)
- My name is spelled with two R's.
- I was born in the 70's.
- There are twenty ISP's in this city. (Purpose: to prevent the reader
from understanding ISPS.)
- and so on...
Cornelia
Robert Lieblich
>
> Are there any cases where "apostrophe + s" can be used to express a
> plural (not possessive)?
Yes. The usage is much less common than it used to be. I'll deal with
some of your questions first --
I'm thinking of examples like these:
>
> - There are two James's at work. (Or "keeping up with the Jones's".)
Absolutely not. The only correct plural of a proper noun adds either
"s" or "es." Only "There are two Jameses at work" is correct. I know
you sometimes see "James's" as the plural, but it is wrong. This is an
issue of spelling, and spelling has rules that people have to follow.
If you know two people named "Macy," by the way, and both are coming to
dinner, you write "The Macys are coming to dinner." Just an "s" for the
plural. If you consider the parents of Susan Thomases (a real person),
they are the Thomaseses. That's the rule.
> - My name is spelled with two R's.
This is correct. Some people would argue that you can also use Rs. I
find that a bit confusing, but this usage is shifting, and it probably
isn't wrong. R's isn't wrong either.
> - I was born in the 70's.
Most people would now omit the apostrophe. Some wouldn't Same
situation as with R's.
> - There are twenty ISP's in this city. (Purpose: to prevent the reader
> from understanding ISPS.)
ISPs is also seen. I'd say the choice here is 50-50.
In general, the more content in what is to be pluralized, the less you
need an apostrophe. If you want the plural of "a", you pretty much have
to write "a's" or people would think you were writing the word "as". At
the other extreme, a noun used in its ordinary sense, proper or common,
takes only "s" or "es" -- no apostrophe.
Mark Brader
> Are there any cases where "apostrophe + s" can be used to express a
Only if it's the plural of an acronym, number, etc.
> - There are two James's at work. (Or "keeping up with the Jones's".)
Should be "Jameses" and "Joneses".
> - My name is spelled with two R's.
Correct and I think preferable, but some people do use "Rs".
> - I was born in the 70's.
Correct, but "70s" is becoming more popular.
> - There are twenty ISP's in this city. (Purpose: to prevent the reader
Correct, but "ISPs" is definitely more popular now. "ISP's" will tend
to be read as a possessive.
> from understanding ISPS.)
Don't capitalize the s that makes "ISPs" plural.
--
Mark Brader "The best you can write will be the best you are.
Toronto Every sentence is the result of a long probation."
m...@vex.net -- Henry David Thoreau, 1841
My text in this article is in the public domain.
D. Spencer Hines
2. Far less bafflegab and eyewash than we generally see in your posts.
3. So, what's your legal practice all about?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:395AD1...@erols.com...
| lefleau wrote:
| >
| > Are there any cases where "apostrophe + s" can be used to express a
| > plural (not possessive)?
|
| Yes. The usage is much less common than it used to be. I'll deal
with
| some of your questions first --
|
| I'm thinking of examples like these:
| >
| > - There are two James's at work. (Or "keeping up with the Jones's".)
|
| Absolutely not. The only correct plural of a proper noun adds either
| "s" or "es." Only "There are two Jameses at work" is correct. I know
| you sometimes see "James's" as the plural, but it is wrong. This is
an
| issue of spelling, and spelling has rules that people have to follow.
| If you know two people named "Macy," by the way, and both are coming
to
| dinner, you write "The Macys are coming to dinner." Just an "s" for
the
| plural. If you consider the parents of Susan Thomases (a real
person),
| they are the Thomaseses. That's the rule.
|
| > - My name is spelled with two R's.
|
| This is correct. Some people would argue that you can also use Rs. I
| find that a bit confusing, but this usage is shifting, and it probably
| isn't wrong. R's isn't wrong either.
| > - I was born in the 70's.
|
| Most people would now omit the apostrophe. Some wouldn't Same
| situation as with R's.
|
| > - There are twenty ISP's in this city. (Purpose: to prevent the
reader
Dave Swindell
writes
>Are there any cases where "apostrophe + s" can be used to express a
>
>- There are two James's at work. (Or "keeping up with the Jones's".)
>from understanding ISPS.)
>
There is a wealth of very good advice in reply to this posting, and to
amplify it here is my twopenniworth.
I can think of *no* circumstance in which the use of 's for plurals of
numbers and abbreviations adds to legibility and sense, and almost
invariably it creates significant ambiguity.
To demonstrate the ambiguity, if you use 's for plurals, as well as for
the two legitimate uses, what does the following mean:-
1990's top DJ's PC's PCB's bust.
If you repudiate the apostrophe for plurals the meaning is clear.
Books and references that mention the use of 's for plurals are
commenting on current useage, without giving any value judgement. This
is laudably liberal of them, but it doesn't help when people want
guidance on the validity of the useage, as does the original poster.
So the best advice is *not* to use 's for plurals.
Dave dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>...unless you need them.
>A name is written with two as.
>A name is written with two a's.
>Here the apostrophe is unavoidable.
But the lower-case A is not.
A name is written with two As.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
[...]
>>A name is written with two As.
>Okay, how about this:
>As are written all the time.
>A's are written all the time.
>The "As" would probably not be read the same as "A's"
>on first inspection.
There are some sentences that the skilful writer simply does not
write.
bjg
Dave Swindell
<t...@epenguin.org> writes
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <PrGLXBAk...@tcp.co.uk>, Dave Swindell wrote:
>>To demonstrate the ambiguity, if you use 's for plurals, as well as for
>>the two legitimate uses, what does the following mean:-
>>
>>1990's top DJ's PC's PCB's bust.
>
>for in that sentence.
>
Are you serious?
"Nineteen ninety's top disk jockey's personal computer's printed circuit
board is (or has) bust".
or without apostrophes:-
"The printed circuit board in the personal computer belonging to the top
disk jockey of the year 1990, is bust".
Note how "1990's" taken as a genitive means "belonging to the precise
year 1990". "The decade beginning 1990" would be expressed as "1990s".
>>
>>Books and references that mention the use of 's for plurals are
>>commenting on current useage, without giving any value judgement. This
>>is laudably liberal of them, but it doesn't help when people want
>>guidance on the validity of the useage, as does the original poster.
>>
>>So the best advice is *not* to use 's for plurals.
>
>...unless you need them.
>
>A name is written with two as.
>A name is written with two a's.
>
>Here the apostrophe is unavoidable.
>
Not unavoidable, but certainly this is the *only* place where it can be
justified, however tenuously. However, I find the justification so
utterly tenuous as to be meaningless, because it is a single, and very
rare, exception.
I find the "a's" in your second line just too inelegant for words, and
in similar circumstances I invariably use upper case letters and quotes,
so it would be:-
"A name" is written with two "A"s.
which I assume is what you meant.
Or even:-
"A name" is written with two "a"s.
You could also have quoted the classic "Mind your Ps and Qs", which is
such a well-known cliche that nobody would question it written that way.
But you might, and I have been known to, write it as:-
Mind your "P"s and "Q"s.
If in doubt, leave the apostrophe out :-))
Jerry Friedman
Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrn8lp4...@beastor.epenguin.org>, Tim Coleman
> <t...@epenguin.org> writes
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >In article <PrGLXBAk...@tcp.co.uk>, Dave Swindell wrote:
> >>To demonstrate the ambiguity, if you use 's for plurals, as well as
for
> >>the two legitimate uses, what does the following mean:-
> >>
> >>1990's top DJ's PC's PCB's bust.
> >
> >Do tell what that means. I can't figure out what "PC" is standing
> >for in that sentence.
> >
> Are you serious?
>
> "Nineteen ninety's top disk jockey's personal computer's printed
circuit
> board is (or has) bust".
>
> or without apostrophes:-
>
> "The printed circuit board in the personal computer belonging to the
top
> disk jockey of the year 1990, is bust".
I couldn't have figured it out either. Was "bust" to make it harder for
us Leftpondians? We don't use it as an adjective or a past participle
(or a past tense, for that matter)--those are "busted".
...
> >A name is written with two as.
> >A name is written with two a's.
> >
> >Here the apostrophe is unavoidable.
> >
> Not unavoidable, but certainly this is the *only* place where it can
be
> justified, however tenuously. However, I find the justification so
> utterly tenuous as to be meaningless, because it is a single, and very
> rare, exception.
>
> I find the "a's" in your second line just too inelegant for words, and
> in similar circumstances I invariably use upper case letters and
quotes,
> so it would be:-
>
> "A name" is written with two "A"s.
I guess it's a matter of taste. To me, two quotation marks are a lot
less elegant than one apostrophe.
>
> which I assume is what you meant.
...
--
Jerry Friedman
jfrE...@nnm.cc.nm.us
i before e
and all the disclaimers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Skitt
Jerry Friedman <jfried...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8jj6dv$vfi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Was "bust" to make it harder for
> us Leftpondians? We don't use it as an adjective or a past participle
> (or a past tense, for that matter)--those are "busted".
> ...
MWCD10 disagrees. "Bust" can be an adjective and also a past participle.
It may not be widely used in Leftpondia, but it can not be said that "we
don't use it".
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
Michael West
"Tim Coleman" <t...@epenguin.org> wrote in message
>
> So you are arguing that a skilful writer will ignore the
> perfectly acceptable practice of using the apostrophe to
> denote a plural just because you don't like it?
>
> I argue that there is the possibility of an ambiguous
> plural that cannot be ameliorated by rewriting the sentence,
> and that can only be understandably written using an apostrophe.
"Perfectly acceptable" is a ruse, I'm afraid.
I argue that in formal writing, a skilled writer will not rely on
something as ambiguous as a questionable apostrophe
to denote a plural construction. And if the skilled writer
surprises us by doing just that, a skilled editor will do us all
a favour by not letting it stand.
It's fine for Usenet, though.
--
Michael West
Charles Riggs
<dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>You could also have quoted the classic "Mind your Ps and Qs", which is
>such a well-known cliche that nobody would question it written that way.
>But you might, and I have been known to, write it as:-
>
>Mind your "P"s and "Q"s.
I think "Mind your p's and q's" is less objectionable in appearance.
Charles Riggs
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>>>Okay, how about this:
>>>As are written all the time.
>>>A's are written all the time.
>>>The "As" would probably not be read the same as "A's"
>>>on first inspection.
>>There are some sentences that the skilful writer simply does not
>>write.
>So you are arguing that a skilful writer will ignore the
>perfectly acceptable practice of using the apostrophe to
>denote a plural just because you don't like it?
Er, no. I am suggesting that, with or without an apostrophe, your
sentence "As are written all the time" is a barbarism.
>I argue that there is the possibility of an ambiguous
>plural that cannot be ameliorated by rewriting the sentence,
>and that can only be understandably written using an apostrophe.
It is always possible to construct artificial sentences that purport
to cause problems of one kind or another. These sentences rarely occur
in real life. When they do, the skilful writer does something
different. The skilful editor, attempting to save unskilful writers
from the consequences of their folly, has a harder job: one that may
require that an entire paragraph be recast.
In this case, a simple addition --- as in "We find that As are written
all the time" or "In the south, As are written all the time" or
"Except where otherwise directed, As are written all the time" ---
might save the underpaid editor from spending too much time on the
task of overcoming the artificial ambiguity that you have introduced.
However, with more context, and more time, the editor might provide a
more elegant solution.
bjg
Egg
Jerry Friedman wrote in message <8jj6dv$vfi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <5gs21PAK...@tcp.co.uk>,
> Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <slrn8lp4...@beastor.epenguin.org>, Tim Coleman
>> <t...@epenguin.org> writes
>> >Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> >In article <PrGLXBAk...@tcp.co.uk>, Dave Swindell wrote:
>> >>To demonstrate the ambiguity, if you use 's for plurals, as well as
>for
>> >>the two legitimate uses, what does the following mean:-
>> >>
>> >>1990's top DJ's PC's PCB's bust.
>> >
>> >Do tell what that means. I can't figure out what "PC" is standing
>> >for in that sentence.
>> >
>> Are you serious?
>>
>> "Nineteen ninety's top disk jockey's personal computer's printed
>circuit
>> board is (or has) bust".
>>
>> or without apostrophes:-
>>
>> "The printed circuit board in the personal computer belonging to the
>top
>> disk jockey of the year 1990, is bust".
>
>us Leftpondians? We don't use it as an adjective or a past participle
>(or a past tense, for that matter)--those are "busted".
>...
>
>> >A name is written with two a's.
>> >
>> >Here the apostrophe is unavoidable.
>> >
>> Not unavoidable, but certainly this is the *only* place where it can
>be
>> justified, however tenuously. However, I find the justification so
>> utterly tenuous as to be meaningless, because it is a single, and very
>> rare, exception.
>>
>> I find the "a's" in your second line just too inelegant for words, and
>> in similar circumstances I invariably use upper case letters and
>quotes,
>> so it would be:-
>>
>> "A name" is written with two "A"s.
>
>I guess it's a matter of taste. To me, two quotation marks are a lot
>less elegant than one apostrophe.
>>
You can't have it both ways. If one apostrophe is more elegant than two
quotation marks then surely no apostrophe is more elegant than one?
Nobody seems to have mentioned using apostrophes in "dot your i's (and cross
your t's)" to avoid confusion with "is".
I think I prefer quotes (single or double) or using an italics/roman
contrast. Dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s. Nothing is going to make it
elegant but at least it is clear.
I work with a lot of mathematical typesetting and only recently won the
battle to drop the apostrophes after numbers (7's, 2's, etc). I argued that
they meant nothing and that there was no ambiguity if they were left out.
Algebraic variables (x, y, a, b, etc) are invariably set in italics so a
roman "s" works well with most typefaces.