What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?












266















For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of




There are many automated teller machines in this city.




Would it be




There are many ATMs in this city.




or




There are many ATM's in this city.

(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).




or just




There are many ATM in this city.

(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).




Maybe something else?










share|improve this question




















  • 33





    +1; great question, but whilst not meaning to sound overly pedantic, ATM is an initialism, not an acronym.

    – Bryan
    Apr 14 '11 at 22:22






  • 37





    @Bryan, not all dictionaries agree on that - some define acronyms to include initialisms and your pedantry fails to mention that... :)

    – Unreason
    Oct 11 '11 at 12:28






  • 19





    ATM Machines :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Apr 23 '14 at 6:38






  • 12





    JoeTaxpayer: The Colon followed by a Hyphen followed by a Capital P, indicates the preceding statement was in some way humours or teasing. :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Oct 22 '14 at 23:12






  • 6





    @Lyndon White ATM Machine falls under RAS Syndrome! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome

    – Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
    Nov 15 '17 at 6:31


















266















For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of




There are many automated teller machines in this city.




Would it be




There are many ATMs in this city.




or




There are many ATM's in this city.

(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).




or just




There are many ATM in this city.

(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).




Maybe something else?










share|improve this question




















  • 33





    +1; great question, but whilst not meaning to sound overly pedantic, ATM is an initialism, not an acronym.

    – Bryan
    Apr 14 '11 at 22:22






  • 37





    @Bryan, not all dictionaries agree on that - some define acronyms to include initialisms and your pedantry fails to mention that... :)

    – Unreason
    Oct 11 '11 at 12:28






  • 19





    ATM Machines :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Apr 23 '14 at 6:38






  • 12





    JoeTaxpayer: The Colon followed by a Hyphen followed by a Capital P, indicates the preceding statement was in some way humours or teasing. :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Oct 22 '14 at 23:12






  • 6





    @Lyndon White ATM Machine falls under RAS Syndrome! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome

    – Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
    Nov 15 '17 at 6:31
















266












266








266


71






For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of




There are many automated teller machines in this city.




Would it be




There are many ATMs in this city.




or




There are many ATM's in this city.

(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).




or just




There are many ATM in this city.

(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).




Maybe something else?










share|improve this question
















For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of




There are many automated teller machines in this city.




Would it be




There are many ATMs in this city.




or




There are many ATM's in this city.

(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).




or just




There are many ATM in this city.

(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).




Maybe something else?







nouns grammatical-number orthography apostrophe acronyms






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 9 '17 at 20:56









sumelic

46.6k8110214




46.6k8110214










asked Aug 12 '10 at 20:43









JohnFxJohnFx

4,29683740




4,29683740








  • 33





    +1; great question, but whilst not meaning to sound overly pedantic, ATM is an initialism, not an acronym.

    – Bryan
    Apr 14 '11 at 22:22






  • 37





    @Bryan, not all dictionaries agree on that - some define acronyms to include initialisms and your pedantry fails to mention that... :)

    – Unreason
    Oct 11 '11 at 12:28






  • 19





    ATM Machines :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Apr 23 '14 at 6:38






  • 12





    JoeTaxpayer: The Colon followed by a Hyphen followed by a Capital P, indicates the preceding statement was in some way humours or teasing. :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Oct 22 '14 at 23:12






  • 6





    @Lyndon White ATM Machine falls under RAS Syndrome! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome

    – Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
    Nov 15 '17 at 6:31
















  • 33





    +1; great question, but whilst not meaning to sound overly pedantic, ATM is an initialism, not an acronym.

    – Bryan
    Apr 14 '11 at 22:22






  • 37





    @Bryan, not all dictionaries agree on that - some define acronyms to include initialisms and your pedantry fails to mention that... :)

    – Unreason
    Oct 11 '11 at 12:28






  • 19





    ATM Machines :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Apr 23 '14 at 6:38






  • 12





    JoeTaxpayer: The Colon followed by a Hyphen followed by a Capital P, indicates the preceding statement was in some way humours or teasing. :-P

    – Lyndon White
    Oct 22 '14 at 23:12






  • 6





    @Lyndon White ATM Machine falls under RAS Syndrome! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome

    – Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
    Nov 15 '17 at 6:31










33




33





+1; great question, but whilst not meaning to sound overly pedantic, ATM is an initialism, not an acronym.

– Bryan
Apr 14 '11 at 22:22





+1; great question, but whilst not meaning to sound overly pedantic, ATM is an initialism, not an acronym.

– Bryan
Apr 14 '11 at 22:22




37




37





@Bryan, not all dictionaries agree on that - some define acronyms to include initialisms and your pedantry fails to mention that... :)

– Unreason
Oct 11 '11 at 12:28





@Bryan, not all dictionaries agree on that - some define acronyms to include initialisms and your pedantry fails to mention that... :)

– Unreason
Oct 11 '11 at 12:28




19




19





ATM Machines :-P

– Lyndon White
Apr 23 '14 at 6:38





ATM Machines :-P

– Lyndon White
Apr 23 '14 at 6:38




12




12





JoeTaxpayer: The Colon followed by a Hyphen followed by a Capital P, indicates the preceding statement was in some way humours or teasing. :-P

– Lyndon White
Oct 22 '14 at 23:12





JoeTaxpayer: The Colon followed by a Hyphen followed by a Capital P, indicates the preceding statement was in some way humours or teasing. :-P

– Lyndon White
Oct 22 '14 at 23:12




6




6





@Lyndon White ATM Machine falls under RAS Syndrome! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome

– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Nov 15 '17 at 6:31







@Lyndon White ATM Machine falls under RAS Syndrome! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome

– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Nov 15 '17 at 6:31












10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















165














The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"



This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.



This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.



The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)



Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)



To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.






share|improve this answer





















  • 26





    'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

    – oosterwal
    Mar 7 '11 at 18:24








  • 17





    Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

    – tchrist
    Apr 1 '12 at 1:38






  • 19





    The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

    – tchrist
    Apr 1 '12 at 3:03








  • 3





    There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

    – Neil Fein
    Apr 1 '12 at 4:23






  • 4





    @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

    – Ahlqvist
    Apr 3 '14 at 7:44



















26














The first is the correct usage, in my view. The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.



In any case, never use an apostrophe. 's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.






share|improve this answer



















  • 17





    Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

    – nohat
    Aug 12 '10 at 21:27






  • 3





    @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

    – Noldorin
    Aug 12 '10 at 21:29













  • @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

    – Juan Mendes
    Mar 15 '14 at 8:49






  • 2





    @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

    – Noldorin
    Mar 15 '14 at 18:42













  • I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

    – Drazen Bjelovuk
    Dec 19 '14 at 3:22





















26














I agree with Wikipedia, wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".



Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for:




"OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances



"OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances



"OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances




"Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

    – tchrist
    Feb 24 '12 at 1:15








  • 2





    @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

    – FumbleFingers
    Feb 24 '12 at 1:27






  • 7





    I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

    – MrHen
    Feb 24 '12 at 5:29






  • 2





    @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

    – MrHen
    Feb 24 '12 at 23:42






  • 2





    @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

    – MrHen
    Feb 26 '12 at 1:36



















12














Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs)] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs?] both go for the first option.






share|improve this answer





















  • 7





    [citation needed]

    – Sridhar Ratnakumar
    Aug 12 '10 at 21:05



















12














Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).



Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion." As examples, the rule suggests:
OKs
ABCs
RIFs
YWCAs



The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As." From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order. But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

    – Juan Mendes
    Mar 15 '14 at 8:51



















11














I vote for the first, "ATMs". The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever). This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine, and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.



The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one. It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.






share|improve this answer





















  • 11





    Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

    – tchrist
    Feb 24 '12 at 1:12






  • 2





    @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

    – supercat
    Oct 15 '12 at 23:45











  • If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

    – supercat
    Oct 15 '12 at 23:51






  • 3





    @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Nov 20 '12 at 19:16



















10














Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".



I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

    – Jared Updike
    Aug 11 '11 at 18:26











  • @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

    – Neil Fein
    Feb 26 '12 at 21:59











  • Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

    – supercat
    Oct 18 '12 at 23:09






  • 1





    "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

    – Jon Hanna
    Feb 13 '13 at 21:41



















6














Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.



The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read. Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization. Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.






share|improve this answer































    3














    Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...



    There is an issue with all-caps. For example, if we were:



    Talking about ATMs. Then the apostrophe is out.



    But, if we were:



    TALKING ABOUT ATM'S. Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate Automated Teller Machine from, say, Automated Teller Machine Software



    Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...






    share|improve this answer































      -2














      Using the apostrophe to indicate plurals of numbers, letters and abbreviations is standard, but it is not as common as s without the apostrophe.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

        – user9383
        Feb 24 '12 at 2:01










      protected by user2683 Jun 12 '12 at 20:00



      Thank you for your interest in this question.
      Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



      Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














      10 Answers
      10






      active

      oldest

      votes








      10 Answers
      10






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      165














      The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"



      This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.



      This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.



      The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)



      Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)



      To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 26





        'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

        – oosterwal
        Mar 7 '11 at 18:24








      • 17





        Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 1:38






      • 19





        The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 3:03








      • 3





        There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

        – Neil Fein
        Apr 1 '12 at 4:23






      • 4





        @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

        – Ahlqvist
        Apr 3 '14 at 7:44
















      165














      The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"



      This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.



      This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.



      The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)



      Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)



      To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 26





        'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

        – oosterwal
        Mar 7 '11 at 18:24








      • 17





        Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 1:38






      • 19





        The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 3:03








      • 3





        There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

        – Neil Fein
        Apr 1 '12 at 4:23






      • 4





        @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

        – Ahlqvist
        Apr 3 '14 at 7:44














      165












      165








      165







      The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"



      This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.



      This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.



      The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)



      Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)



      To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.






      share|improve this answer















      The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"



      This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.



      This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.



      The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)



      Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)



      To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Feb 24 '12 at 4:16

























      answered Aug 14 '10 at 23:55









      Neil FeinNeil Fein

      4,31022135




      4,31022135








      • 26





        'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

        – oosterwal
        Mar 7 '11 at 18:24








      • 17





        Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 1:38






      • 19





        The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 3:03








      • 3





        There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

        – Neil Fein
        Apr 1 '12 at 4:23






      • 4





        @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

        – Ahlqvist
        Apr 3 '14 at 7:44














      • 26





        'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

        – oosterwal
        Mar 7 '11 at 18:24








      • 17





        Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 1:38






      • 19





        The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

        – tchrist
        Apr 1 '12 at 3:03








      • 3





        There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

        – Neil Fein
        Apr 1 '12 at 4:23






      • 4





        @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

        – Ahlqvist
        Apr 3 '14 at 7:44








      26




      26





      'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

      – oosterwal
      Mar 7 '11 at 18:24







      'VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

      – oosterwal
      Mar 7 '11 at 18:24






      17




      17





      Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

      – tchrist
      Apr 1 '12 at 1:38





      Acronyms ending in the letter “S” take -es in the plural: “Your SOSes are getting through to no one.”

      – tchrist
      Apr 1 '12 at 1:38




      19




      19





      The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

      – tchrist
      Apr 1 '12 at 3:03







      The crux of the problem is that SOS’s cannot serve as both a genitive singular and a nominative plural, because you then run into a brick wall trying to make a genitive plural: ****SOS’s’s*** or some such similar silliness simply doesn’t work. “These SOSes are new, this SOS’s origin, these SOSes’ origins,” etc. are all clear and unambiguous. You can’t do that with SOS’s trying to do both jobs and getting klutzed up when it gets promoted to a genitive plural.

      – tchrist
      Apr 1 '12 at 3:03






      3




      3





      There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

      – Neil Fein
      Apr 1 '12 at 4:23





      There's an easy solution: Don't do that. It's best to rephrase to avoid silly constructions like "SOS's's" that nobody would ever actually write.

      – Neil Fein
      Apr 1 '12 at 4:23




      4




      4





      @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

      – Ahlqvist
      Apr 3 '14 at 7:44





      @tchrist SOS, however, is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation, but a morse prosign.

      – Ahlqvist
      Apr 3 '14 at 7:44













      26














      The first is the correct usage, in my view. The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.



      In any case, never use an apostrophe. 's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 17





        Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

        – nohat
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:27






      • 3





        @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

        – Noldorin
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:29













      • @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:49






      • 2





        @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

        – Noldorin
        Mar 15 '14 at 18:42













      • I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

        – Drazen Bjelovuk
        Dec 19 '14 at 3:22


















      26














      The first is the correct usage, in my view. The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.



      In any case, never use an apostrophe. 's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 17





        Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

        – nohat
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:27






      • 3





        @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

        – Noldorin
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:29













      • @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:49






      • 2





        @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

        – Noldorin
        Mar 15 '14 at 18:42













      • I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

        – Drazen Bjelovuk
        Dec 19 '14 at 3:22
















      26












      26








      26







      The first is the correct usage, in my view. The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.



      In any case, never use an apostrophe. 's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.






      share|improve this answer













      The first is the correct usage, in my view. The third may be quite acceptable however, since the M in ATM could equally stand for 'machine' or 'machines', though I think pluralising the actual acronym is much clearer in speech.



      In any case, never use an apostrophe. 's should only be appended to a word to create the posessive form ("of ..."), never for plurals.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Aug 12 '10 at 21:02









      NoldorinNoldorin

      10.5k24559




      10.5k24559








      • 17





        Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

        – nohat
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:27






      • 3





        @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

        – Noldorin
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:29













      • @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:49






      • 2





        @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

        – Noldorin
        Mar 15 '14 at 18:42













      • I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

        – Drazen Bjelovuk
        Dec 19 '14 at 3:22
















      • 17





        Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

        – nohat
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:27






      • 3





        @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

        – Noldorin
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:29













      • @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:49






      • 2





        @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

        – Noldorin
        Mar 15 '14 at 18:42













      • I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

        – Drazen Bjelovuk
        Dec 19 '14 at 3:22










      17




      17





      Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

      – nohat
      Aug 12 '10 at 21:27





      Unfortunately I think ’s is the standard way to pluralize single letters—“A’s, B’s, and C’s”.

      – nohat
      Aug 12 '10 at 21:27




      3




      3





      @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

      – Noldorin
      Aug 12 '10 at 21:29







      @nohat: Possibly, though I'm not sure of that myself. Either way, letters aren't technically acronyms, so I think my answer is still safe.

      – Noldorin
      Aug 12 '10 at 21:29















      @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

      – Juan Mendes
      Mar 15 '14 at 8:49





      @nohat idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

      – Juan Mendes
      Mar 15 '14 at 8:49




      2




      2





      @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

      – Noldorin
      Mar 15 '14 at 18:42







      @JuanMendes: that's bad usage in my view. It's done often enough though.

      – Noldorin
      Mar 15 '14 at 18:42















      I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

      – Drazen Bjelovuk
      Dec 19 '14 at 3:22







      I mean, it could otherwise get a little confusing. What if your sentence started with "As", for example? Would it be the word, "as", or the plural of the letter? The apostrophe here seems to be the best solution. Though I do agree they should be omitted in every other case.

      – Drazen Bjelovuk
      Dec 19 '14 at 3:22













      26














      I agree with Wikipedia, wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".



      Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for:




      "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances



      "OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances



      "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances




      "Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).






      share|improve this answer





















      • 3





        There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:15








      • 2





        @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

        – FumbleFingers
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:27






      • 7





        I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 5:29






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 23:42






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

        – MrHen
        Feb 26 '12 at 1:36
















      26














      I agree with Wikipedia, wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".



      Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for:




      "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances



      "OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances



      "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances




      "Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).






      share|improve this answer





















      • 3





        There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:15








      • 2





        @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

        – FumbleFingers
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:27






      • 7





        I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 5:29






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 23:42






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

        – MrHen
        Feb 26 '12 at 1:36














      26












      26








      26







      I agree with Wikipedia, wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".



      Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for:




      "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances



      "OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances



      "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances




      "Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).






      share|improve this answer















      I agree with Wikipedia, wordreference and CMOS - acronyms and initialisms are "regular" nouns; plurals are formed by adding "s".



      Checking Google Books for actual usage in a relatively "contentious" case, I searched for:




      "OSs" unix windows linux 3120 written instances



      "OSes" unix windows linux 1060 instances



      "OS's" unix windows linux 520 instances




      "Simpler" cases such as CDs vs CD's are even more decisive (over 10:1 in favour of the former).







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Feb 24 '12 at 21:48

























      answered Feb 24 '12 at 1:06









      FumbleFingersFumbleFingers

      119k32243423




      119k32243423








      • 3





        There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:15








      • 2





        @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

        – FumbleFingers
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:27






      • 7





        I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 5:29






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 23:42






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

        – MrHen
        Feb 26 '12 at 1:36














      • 3





        There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:15








      • 2





        @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

        – FumbleFingers
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:27






      • 7





        I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 5:29






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

        – MrHen
        Feb 24 '12 at 23:42






      • 2





        @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

        – MrHen
        Feb 26 '12 at 1:36








      3




      3





      There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

      – tchrist
      Feb 24 '12 at 1:15







      There is a problem with product names. For example, Nikon has models named (each in the singular) D3, D3s, D3x. Trying to make plurals and possessives and plural possessives of those is a real treat. How many D3s do you have? None, we only have a D3s, not a D3. How many D3ses do you have? How many D3xes do you have?

      – tchrist
      Feb 24 '12 at 1:15






      2




      2





      @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

      – FumbleFingers
      Feb 24 '12 at 1:27





      @tchrist: Yawn. I might have known you'd come up with a gotcha!. Nikon might also make a model D3es for all I know. Basically that's their problem. If we decide to endorse D3es's they'll probably release a special model with a name ending in apostrophe+"s".

      – FumbleFingers
      Feb 24 '12 at 1:27




      7




      7





      I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

      – MrHen
      Feb 24 '12 at 5:29





      I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

      – MrHen
      Feb 24 '12 at 5:29




      2




      2





      @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

      – MrHen
      Feb 24 '12 at 23:42





      @FumbleFingers: The issue is not only with GB. Every step of the process can choke on an apostrophe. Simply looking at the result set is not going to provide you with enough information to tell you whether it is accurate. As such, I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes.

      – MrHen
      Feb 24 '12 at 23:42




      2




      2





      @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

      – MrHen
      Feb 26 '12 at 1:36





      @FumbleFingers: I already told you why. The technology involved here has a long history of choking on apostrophes. I do not think anything particular about your searches or what they represent. My point is simply that I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. You seem to have done what you consider due diligence; congratulations. I remain skeptical.

      – MrHen
      Feb 26 '12 at 1:36











      12














      Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs)] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs?] both go for the first option.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 7





        [citation needed]

        – Sridhar Ratnakumar
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:05
















      12














      Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs)] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs?] both go for the first option.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 7





        [citation needed]

        – Sridhar Ratnakumar
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:05














      12












      12








      12







      Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs)] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs?] both go for the first option.






      share|improve this answer















      Oxford Dictionary [e.g. SOS, noun (plural SOSs)] and The Economist [e.g. Are ATMs stealing jobs?] both go for the first option.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Nov 20 '12 at 17:48









      Cameron

      6,53212442




      6,53212442










      answered Aug 12 '10 at 21:04









      EvanEvan

      7161812




      7161812








      • 7





        [citation needed]

        – Sridhar Ratnakumar
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:05














      • 7





        [citation needed]

        – Sridhar Ratnakumar
        Aug 12 '10 at 21:05








      7




      7





      [citation needed]

      – Sridhar Ratnakumar
      Aug 12 '10 at 21:05





      [citation needed]

      – Sridhar Ratnakumar
      Aug 12 '10 at 21:05











      12














      Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).



      Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion." As examples, the rule suggests:
      OKs
      ABCs
      RIFs
      YWCAs



      The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As." From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order. But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:51
















      12














      Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).



      Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion." As examples, the rule suggests:
      OKs
      ABCs
      RIFs
      YWCAs



      The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As." From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order. But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:51














      12












      12








      12







      Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).



      Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion." As examples, the rule suggests:
      OKs
      ABCs
      RIFs
      YWCAs



      The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As." From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order. But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.






      share|improve this answer













      Since this is a question about acronyms, and the Federal Government's bureaucracy is notorious for using acronyms, I decided to look up the answer in the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual (2000).



      Rule 8.11 of the GPO Style Manual states: "While an apostrophe is used to indicate possession and contractions, it is not generally necessary to use an apostrophe to show the plural form of most acronyms, initialisms, or abbreviations, except where clarity and sense demand such inclusion." As examples, the rule suggests:
      OKs
      ABCs
      RIFs
      YWCAs



      The rule does not show an exception for an acronym, but does refer to one case I found interesting -- the "Oakland A's" needs an apostrophe because otherwise it would be the "Oakland As." From that I would assume that if the addition of an s to an acronym would appear to give the acronym a different meaning, then an apostrophe would be in order. But since acronyms are capitalized letters, the addition of a small s should not make a difference, except where (for some reason) one is writing in a format that is all capitals -- such as the format that military and diplomatic messages were sent until very recently.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Jan 30 '14 at 15:11









      Bruce JamesBruce James

      1,90762237




      1,90762237








      • 1





        Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:51














      • 1





        Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

        – Juan Mendes
        Mar 15 '14 at 8:51








      1




      1





      Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

      – Juan Mendes
      Mar 15 '14 at 8:51





      Single letters do seem to take apostrophes idioms.thefreedictionary.com/_/…

      – Juan Mendes
      Mar 15 '14 at 8:51











      11














      I vote for the first, "ATMs". The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever). This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine, and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.



      The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one. It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 11





        Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:12






      • 2





        @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:45











      • If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:51






      • 3





        @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

        – Edwin Ashworth
        Nov 20 '12 at 19:16
















      11














      I vote for the first, "ATMs". The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever). This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine, and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.



      The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one. It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 11





        Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:12






      • 2





        @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:45











      • If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:51






      • 3





        @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

        – Edwin Ashworth
        Nov 20 '12 at 19:16














      11












      11








      11







      I vote for the first, "ATMs". The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever). This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine, and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.



      The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one. It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.






      share|improve this answer















      I vote for the first, "ATMs". The second is just wrong (apostrophe is not used for plurals, ever). This is because ATM is a defined term for an AT machine, and using it as plural "automatic teller machines" would be a redefinition of a common abbreviation, which one should not be trigger-happy about.



      The third, however, does not solve the real need to say there's more than one. It is though clear from the sentence, but might not be so in a general case.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Aug 14 '10 at 21:50

























      answered Aug 12 '10 at 20:55









      Pavel RadzivilovskyPavel Radzivilovsky

      1,90031417




      1,90031417








      • 11





        Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:12






      • 2





        @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:45











      • If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:51






      • 3





        @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

        – Edwin Ashworth
        Nov 20 '12 at 19:16














      • 11





        Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

        – tchrist
        Feb 24 '12 at 1:12






      • 2





        @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:45











      • If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

        – supercat
        Oct 15 '12 at 23:51






      • 3





        @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

        – Edwin Ashworth
        Nov 20 '12 at 19:16








      11




      11





      Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

      – tchrist
      Feb 24 '12 at 1:12





      Actually, an apostrophe is used for plurals in at least one special situation: single letters. As in mind your p’s and q’s. If you think about it, it has to work that way: you don’t dot your *is; you dot your i’s, and necessarily so.

      – tchrist
      Feb 24 '12 at 1:12




      2




      2





      @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

      – supercat
      Oct 15 '12 at 23:45





      @tchrist: I would suggest that using apostrophes to separate out single letters should be interpreted as a manifestation of a more general rule: use apostrophes when one syllable contains elements which should be parsed differently (e.g. when one talks of having five i's, the letter before the apostrophe should be read as a discrete letter, while the letter after should be pronounced as though it was part of a word). While this construct most commonly occurs when forming plurals of things which cannot be regarded as "nouns read in usual fashion", it's also usable in constructs like "DQ'ed".

      – supercat
      Oct 15 '12 at 23:45













      If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

      – supercat
      Oct 15 '12 at 23:51





      If the normal pronunciation of "ATM" were "atom", reading the letters as text, then a pluralizing "s" would match the interpretation of the preceding characters, thus avoiding any need for a delimiter. But to my eye, if "ATM" is read as three discrete letters, "ATMs" would be four discrete letters, rather than three discrete letters plus an extra "zz" sound (which I would notate as ATM's). Note also, btw, that in the latter usage one could regard the apostrophe as eliding "achine" (without the apostrophe, the plural would be "automatic teller machine s", since initialisms elide word breaks).

      – supercat
      Oct 15 '12 at 23:51




      3




      3





      @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Nov 20 '12 at 19:16





      @tchrist: Lynne Truss says that some dictionaries allow the addition of 's instead of a bare s for a few short words if the result without the apostrophe would be even messier. This gives rise to ex's and do's (a do being a colloquial term for a function or party). I'm not sure that and's, but's, and don't's work too well. I've read somewhere that words cited as words can be italicised and apostrophised: 'There are too many and's in this paragraph.'

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Nov 20 '12 at 19:16











      10














      Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".



      I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

        – Jared Updike
        Aug 11 '11 at 18:26











      • @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

        – Neil Fein
        Feb 26 '12 at 21:59











      • Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

        – supercat
        Oct 18 '12 at 23:09






      • 1





        "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

        – Jon Hanna
        Feb 13 '13 at 21:41
















      10














      Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".



      I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

        – Jared Updike
        Aug 11 '11 at 18:26











      • @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

        – Neil Fein
        Feb 26 '12 at 21:59











      • Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

        – supercat
        Oct 18 '12 at 23:09






      • 1





        "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

        – Jon Hanna
        Feb 13 '13 at 21:41














      10












      10








      10







      Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".



      I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.






      share|improve this answer













      Using 's to pluralize something is called a "Greengrocer's apostrophe".



      I think the battle against the Greengrocer's apostrophe is one we're bound to lose - even if grammar of the general population improved, we'd still occasionally be facing nouns which have a mixture of upper and lower case, for which adding an s by itself at the end would be confusing.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Sep 25 '10 at 3:14









      Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

      10.6k2284158




      10.6k2284158








      • 1





        What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

        – Jared Updike
        Aug 11 '11 at 18:26











      • @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

        – Neil Fein
        Feb 26 '12 at 21:59











      • Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

        – supercat
        Oct 18 '12 at 23:09






      • 1





        "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

        – Jon Hanna
        Feb 13 '13 at 21:41














      • 1





        What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

        – Jared Updike
        Aug 11 '11 at 18:26











      • @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

        – Neil Fein
        Feb 26 '12 at 21:59











      • Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

        – supercat
        Oct 18 '12 at 23:09






      • 1





        "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

        – Jon Hanna
        Feb 13 '13 at 21:41








      1




      1





      What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

      – Jared Updike
      Aug 11 '11 at 18:26





      What about greengrocers whose name has an S at the end of the surname, like Ralphs, a la George A. Ralphs?

      – Jared Updike
      Aug 11 '11 at 18:26













      @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

      – Neil Fein
      Feb 26 '12 at 21:59





      @Jared - You pick a method and stick to it.

      – Neil Fein
      Feb 26 '12 at 21:59













      Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

      – supercat
      Oct 18 '12 at 23:09





      Since most readers will recognize easily what is meant when a combination of characters that don't form a "normal word" is followed by an apostrophe and a suffix (typically 's'), why should one "battle against" such uses in contexts where omitting the apostrophe might potentially cause ambiguity? Some people claim uppercase letters don't need the apostrophe. As As, Is, Os, and Us form words when Ss are appended, I think that notion is silly.

      – supercat
      Oct 18 '12 at 23:09




      1




      1





      "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

      – Jon Hanna
      Feb 13 '13 at 21:41





      "Greengrocer's apostrophe" is a term for incorrect use of 's. It does not apply to uses of 's that are merely much less common than they once were.

      – Jon Hanna
      Feb 13 '13 at 21:41











      6














      Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.



      The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read. Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization. Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.






      share|improve this answer




























        6














        Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.



        The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read. Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization. Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.






        share|improve this answer


























          6












          6








          6







          Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.



          The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read. Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization. Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.






          share|improve this answer













          Either of the first two is acceptable, but I would recommend the first as the apostrophe isn't needed to convey your meaning, and as such is not required.



          The third is just wrong since it creates an awkward sentence that is hard to say and discomforting to read. Most acronyms, including ATM, have a well-defined and commonly accepted meaning, which very rarely includes the pluralization. Avoid the ambiguity and include the s.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Aug 12 '10 at 21:26









          jeffamaphonejeffamaphone

          7641813




          7641813























              3














              Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...



              There is an issue with all-caps. For example, if we were:



              Talking about ATMs. Then the apostrophe is out.



              But, if we were:



              TALKING ABOUT ATM'S. Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate Automated Teller Machine from, say, Automated Teller Machine Software



              Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...






              share|improve this answer




























                3














                Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...



                There is an issue with all-caps. For example, if we were:



                Talking about ATMs. Then the apostrophe is out.



                But, if we were:



                TALKING ABOUT ATM'S. Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate Automated Teller Machine from, say, Automated Teller Machine Software



                Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...






                share|improve this answer


























                  3












                  3








                  3







                  Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...



                  There is an issue with all-caps. For example, if we were:



                  Talking about ATMs. Then the apostrophe is out.



                  But, if we were:



                  TALKING ABOUT ATM'S. Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate Automated Teller Machine from, say, Automated Teller Machine Software



                  Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...






                  share|improve this answer













                  Just a small addition to the subject and one that is probably as much related to typography as it is to grammar...



                  There is an issue with all-caps. For example, if we were:



                  Talking about ATMs. Then the apostrophe is out.



                  But, if we were:



                  TALKING ABOUT ATM'S. Then the case for using one is much stronger as it serves to differentiate Automated Teller Machine from, say, Automated Teller Machine Software



                  Of course, that doesn't address the question of why you'd be using all-caps in the first place...







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 15 '17 at 4:57









                  PerryWPerryW

                  19916




                  19916























                      -2














                      Using the apostrophe to indicate plurals of numbers, letters and abbreviations is standard, but it is not as common as s without the apostrophe.






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 2





                        I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

                        – user9383
                        Feb 24 '12 at 2:01
















                      -2














                      Using the apostrophe to indicate plurals of numbers, letters and abbreviations is standard, but it is not as common as s without the apostrophe.






                      share|improve this answer



















                      • 2





                        I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

                        – user9383
                        Feb 24 '12 at 2:01














                      -2












                      -2








                      -2







                      Using the apostrophe to indicate plurals of numbers, letters and abbreviations is standard, but it is not as common as s without the apostrophe.






                      share|improve this answer













                      Using the apostrophe to indicate plurals of numbers, letters and abbreviations is standard, but it is not as common as s without the apostrophe.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Oct 11 '11 at 11:41









                      morphailmorphail

                      1,17177




                      1,17177








                      • 2





                        I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

                        – user9383
                        Feb 24 '12 at 2:01














                      • 2





                        I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

                        – user9383
                        Feb 24 '12 at 2:01








                      2




                      2





                      I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

                      – user9383
                      Feb 24 '12 at 2:01





                      I'd say you have it backwards. Most authorities (e.g., stylebooks) prefer "ATMs," but most ignor--. Sorry, most people tend to use "ATM's".

                      – user9383
                      Feb 24 '12 at 2:01





                      protected by user2683 Jun 12 '12 at 20:00



                      Thank you for your interest in this question.
                      Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                      Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                      Popular posts from this blog

                      "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                      Alcedinidae

                      Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?