Is “ ’s ” ever correct for pluralization?
15
A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it.
I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct?
grammatical-number punctuation apostrophe
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
add a comment |
15
A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it.
I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct?
grammatical-number punctuation apostrophe
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
It is essentially a question of style. Where a style guide is applicable follow it diligently. Else follow your fancy. Both are acceptable in general formal use.
– Kris
Oct 16 '12 at 15:41
1
possible duplicate of Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not?
– tchrist♦
Apr 6 '13 at 14:34
add a comment |
15
15
15
2
A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it.
I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct?
grammatical-number punctuation apostrophe
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it.
I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct?
grammatical-number punctuation apostrophe
grammatical-number punctuation apostrophe
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
edited Oct 16 '12 at 16:24
tchrist♦
109k28290464
109k28290464
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
asked Nov 18 '10 at 12:20
coricori
3,07721520
3,07721520
It is essentially a question of style. Where a style guide is applicable follow it diligently. Else follow your fancy. Both are acceptable in general formal use.
– Kris
Oct 16 '12 at 15:41
1
possible duplicate of Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not?
– tchrist♦
Apr 6 '13 at 14:34
add a comment |
It is essentially a question of style. Where a style guide is applicable follow it diligently. Else follow your fancy. Both are acceptable in general formal use.
– Kris
Oct 16 '12 at 15:41
1
possible duplicate of Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not?
– tchrist♦
Apr 6 '13 at 14:34
It is essentially a question of style. Where a style guide is applicable follow it diligently. Else follow your fancy. Both are acceptable in general formal use.
– Kris
Oct 16 '12 at 15:41
It is essentially a question of style. Where a style guide is applicable follow it diligently. Else follow your fancy. Both are acceptable in general formal use.
– Kris
Oct 16 '12 at 15:41
1
1
possible duplicate of Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not?
– tchrist♦
Apr 6 '13 at 14:34
possible duplicate of Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not?
– tchrist♦
Apr 6 '13 at 14:34
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
23
From this Wikipedia page:
- It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
lower-case letters, such as be sure to
dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
style guides would prefer to use a
change of font: dot your is and cross
your ts. Upper case
letters need no apostrophe (I got
three As in my exams) except when
there is a risk of misreading, such as
at the start of a sentence: A's are
the highest marks achievable in these
exams.
- For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
necessary, since there is no
possibility of misreading. For this
reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
to 1960's (although the latter is
noted by at least one source as
acceptable in American usage), and
90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
- The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
example, 1000's of years); however, as
with groups of years, it is
unnecessary: there is no possibility
of misreading. Most sources are
against this usage.
- The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
can be no misreading, this is often
regarded as incorrect. That page
has too many &s and #s on it.
- Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
plurals of a very few short words,
such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
would be preferred by most
authorities. Nevertheless, many
writers are still inclined to use such
an apostrophe when the word is thought
to look awkward or unusual without
one.
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
3
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
|
show 4 more comments
5
You could use a hair space (U+200A in Unicode) instead of an apostrophe. For example:
With apostrophe
The do’s and don’t’s of the 1960’s. Be sure to dot your i’s and cross your t’s. 22 has two 2’s.
With no extra space
The dos and don'ts of the 1960s. Be sure to dot your is and cross your ts. 22 has two 2s.
With hair space
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
With hair space and italics
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
6
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5210%2fis-s-ever-correct-for-pluralization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
23
From this Wikipedia page:
- It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
lower-case letters, such as be sure to
dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
style guides would prefer to use a
change of font: dot your is and cross
your ts. Upper case
letters need no apostrophe (I got
three As in my exams) except when
there is a risk of misreading, such as
at the start of a sentence: A's are
the highest marks achievable in these
exams.
- For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
necessary, since there is no
possibility of misreading. For this
reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
to 1960's (although the latter is
noted by at least one source as
acceptable in American usage), and
90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
- The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
example, 1000's of years); however, as
with groups of years, it is
unnecessary: there is no possibility
of misreading. Most sources are
against this usage.
- The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
can be no misreading, this is often
regarded as incorrect. That page
has too many &s and #s on it.
- Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
plurals of a very few short words,
such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
would be preferred by most
authorities. Nevertheless, many
writers are still inclined to use such
an apostrophe when the word is thought
to look awkward or unusual without
one.
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
3
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
|
show 4 more comments
23
From this Wikipedia page:
- It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
lower-case letters, such as be sure to
dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
style guides would prefer to use a
change of font: dot your is and cross
your ts. Upper case
letters need no apostrophe (I got
three As in my exams) except when
there is a risk of misreading, such as
at the start of a sentence: A's are
the highest marks achievable in these
exams.
- For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
necessary, since there is no
possibility of misreading. For this
reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
to 1960's (although the latter is
noted by at least one source as
acceptable in American usage), and
90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
- The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
example, 1000's of years); however, as
with groups of years, it is
unnecessary: there is no possibility
of misreading. Most sources are
against this usage.
- The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
can be no misreading, this is often
regarded as incorrect. That page
has too many &s and #s on it.
- Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
plurals of a very few short words,
such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
would be preferred by most
authorities. Nevertheless, many
writers are still inclined to use such
an apostrophe when the word is thought
to look awkward or unusual without
one.
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
3
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
|
show 4 more comments
23
23
23
From this Wikipedia page:
- It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
lower-case letters, such as be sure to
dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
style guides would prefer to use a
change of font: dot your is and cross
your ts. Upper case
letters need no apostrophe (I got
three As in my exams) except when
there is a risk of misreading, such as
at the start of a sentence: A's are
the highest marks achievable in these
exams.
- For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
necessary, since there is no
possibility of misreading. For this
reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
to 1960's (although the latter is
noted by at least one source as
acceptable in American usage), and
90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
- The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
example, 1000's of years); however, as
with groups of years, it is
unnecessary: there is no possibility
of misreading. Most sources are
against this usage.
- The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
can be no misreading, this is often
regarded as incorrect. That page
has too many &s and #s on it.
- Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
plurals of a very few short words,
such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
would be preferred by most
authorities. Nevertheless, many
writers are still inclined to use such
an apostrophe when the word is thought
to look awkward or unusual without
one.
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
From this Wikipedia page:
- It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
lower-case letters, such as be sure to
dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
style guides would prefer to use a
change of font: dot your is and cross
your ts. Upper case
letters need no apostrophe (I got
three As in my exams) except when
there is a risk of misreading, such as
at the start of a sentence: A's are
the highest marks achievable in these
exams.
- For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
necessary, since there is no
possibility of misreading. For this
reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
to 1960's (although the latter is
noted by at least one source as
acceptable in American usage), and
90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
- The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
example, 1000's of years); however, as
with groups of years, it is
unnecessary: there is no possibility
of misreading. Most sources are
against this usage.
- The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
can be no misreading, this is often
regarded as incorrect. That page
has too many &s and #s on it.
- Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
plurals of a very few short words,
such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
would be preferred by most
authorities. Nevertheless, many
writers are still inclined to use such
an apostrophe when the word is thought
to look awkward or unusual without
one.
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
edited Nov 18 '10 at 15:03
Marthaª
27.3k1087145
27.3k1087145
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
answered Nov 18 '10 at 12:30
JohnoBoyJohnoBoy
8061712
8061712
3
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
|
show 4 more comments
3
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
3
3
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
heh funny, to me "1960's" makes much more sense. i think I interpret it as "the times of 1960" or "1960's", like a possessive. also "nos" and "dos" just looks strange. "no's" and "do's" much better IMO.
– Claudiu
Nov 18 '10 at 16:17
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
With regard to the last point, what would be the correct plural if one wished to use quotes to delineate the thing being made plural (e.g. did his speech contain seven "You know"s, or seven "You know"'s)? The latter seems much better visually, since having a quotation mark with letters on either side looks very odd, but I'm not sure which is orthographically preferable if one can't use typography as an indicator.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:40
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
@Claudiu: I agree with you about the 1960's. Among other things, the 1960's consisted of 1960, 1961, 1962, etc. and not just repetitions of 1960. I'm perhaps more inclined to use apostrophes than some pedants, because believe the most important rule should be that that when a mark makes things easier to read, its use is likely appropriate, regardless of what any "rules" say. I would suggest that an apostrophe is often appropriate to separate text which should be read with different levels of "indirection". For example, I would pluralize "ATM" as "ATM's", since such usage helps make clear...
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:11
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
...that the things to the left of the apostrophe should be read differently from those to the right. I would regard such usage as being similar conceptually to the hyphen in the verb "re-cover" meaning "to cover again", except that a hyphen would generally imply a syllable break, but the "read as letters" and "read conventionally" parts of "ATM's" and "DQ'ed" should not have a syllable break between them.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 23:14
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
Another area where apostrophe-s may do a better job of signaling a plural form than s by itself is in product names that have inventory-number-like model names. For example, the plural form of the Apple iPhone 5s is arguably clearer as iPhone 5s's than as iPhone 5ss.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 3 '16 at 17:38
|
show 4 more comments
5
You could use a hair space (U+200A in Unicode) instead of an apostrophe. For example:
With apostrophe
The do’s and don’t’s of the 1960’s. Be sure to dot your i’s and cross your t’s. 22 has two 2’s.
With no extra space
The dos and don'ts of the 1960s. Be sure to dot your is and cross your ts. 22 has two 2s.
With hair space
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
With hair space and italics
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
6
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
add a comment |
5
You could use a hair space (U+200A in Unicode) instead of an apostrophe. For example:
With apostrophe
The do’s and don’t’s of the 1960’s. Be sure to dot your i’s and cross your t’s. 22 has two 2’s.
With no extra space
The dos and don'ts of the 1960s. Be sure to dot your is and cross your ts. 22 has two 2s.
With hair space
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
With hair space and italics
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
6
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
add a comment |
5
5
5
You could use a hair space (U+200A in Unicode) instead of an apostrophe. For example:
With apostrophe
The do’s and don’t’s of the 1960’s. Be sure to dot your i’s and cross your t’s. 22 has two 2’s.
With no extra space
The dos and don'ts of the 1960s. Be sure to dot your is and cross your ts. 22 has two 2s.
With hair space
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
With hair space and italics
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
You could use a hair space (U+200A in Unicode) instead of an apostrophe. For example:
With apostrophe
The do’s and don’t’s of the 1960’s. Be sure to dot your i’s and cross your t’s. 22 has two 2’s.
With no extra space
The dos and don'ts of the 1960s. Be sure to dot your is and cross your ts. 22 has two 2s.
With hair space
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
With hair space and italics
The do s and don't s of the 1960 s. Be sure to dot your i s and cross your t s. 22 has two 2 s.
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
edited Oct 16 '12 at 15:32
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
answered Feb 5 '12 at 18:24
Todd LehmanTodd Lehman
18115
18115
6
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
add a comment |
6
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
6
6
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
I like the hairspace with the number, and the italics for the pluralized words, but quality typography is not available in all contexts where one uses text.
– supercat
Oct 15 '12 at 22:35
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
You're talking about typesetting, not written language. But if we were discussing the four typeset options you list, I'd still pick the apostrophe, since it's the easiest comprehended.
– Xalorous
Aug 25 '16 at 0:10
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5210%2fis-s-ever-correct-for-pluralization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It is essentially a question of style. Where a style guide is applicable follow it diligently. Else follow your fancy. Both are acceptable in general formal use.
– Kris
Oct 16 '12 at 15:41
1
possible duplicate of Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not?
– tchrist♦
Apr 6 '13 at 14:34