A friend sent me this link about today being "National Punctuation Day."

They agree with us about the "s's" apostrophe. However, they state that it should be "M.D.'s" and "3's." I no longer do that. After our posts here, I write "M.D.s" and "3s" or the "2004s" or whatever. I guess it can be either way?

I put 3s, the '50s, 1990s, but never quite know about vowels on their own such as 'a's and 'i's since they make 'as' and 'is' without any separation. I usually just surround the whole thing as above with those "single inverted commas" to avoid a's and i's. For consistency, I might do 'p's and 'q's the same way.

As for M.D.'s, that's how I'd do it - or M.D's, as that looks better to the eye with certain typefaces - using the excuse that the apostrophe was doing a dual task of expressing possession and replacing the missing dot, of course . Seriously though, I've never seen it written without an apostrophe before. Can someone link me to the thread that this was discussed in, or explain here why it should be the case?

[edited for typo's - sorry, couldn't resist that one ]

The Apostrophe Protection Society covers these and other apostrophe-related questions. There is also a FAQ compiled by Paul Doherty, a regular on their discussion board and occasional contributor here.

It is purely a matter of style, with many people frowning on the uses of apostrophes in constructions like "MDs" and "mind your Ps and Qs". Others feel they help, for some reason.

The APS discussion board has been a bit of war-zone recently, with loads of grumpy reactionaries falling out with each other. Through it all, the above-mentioned Mr Doherty has tried to put oil on the troubled waters to little effect.

We must be thankful for the constant source of joy that is the Wordcraft board.

I do wish that Paul would come back every so often. I do miss him!

I had the occasion to write about "do's and don't's" lately. Should "don't's" have two apostrophes? Is "don'ts" better? Or, should I just plain reword it?

There's disagreement about that. My preference is "do's and don'ts." Some who object to using apostrophes to form plurals of any kind insist it should be "dos and don'ts," which looks terrible to me. There's a momentary pause while you try to figure out what "dos" means; "do's" is clear and doesn't cause any hesitation. "Don't's" is just plain hideous.

The only word I can think of off-hand that can be abbreviated with more than one apostrophe is "forecastle": "fo'c'sle" or "fo'c's'le." I think there are others, though.

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

I agree with tinman. In the normal course of events the apostrophe s is not used to indicate a plural, but I concede there is not really a good alternative in the case of "do's". If I were the author I'd probably italicise part of the words:

dos and don'ts

I concede however that this is not always possible, with handwriting for instance.

There is absolutely no case for using apostrophe s with "don't", as there is no possibility for confusion.

"Do's and don'ts" would be the best way round the problem.

Sadly there is no room for such common sense on the APS site, despite the valiant efforts of Mr Doherty. If you admit to writing Do's, you would be cast off as an illiterate subversive who probably suffered from poor-quality modern teaching.

If you admit to writing Do's

But, Graham, how would you distinguish it from dos (the Spanish word for 2)? Would one just have to distinguish that from context? I would always write "do's," but I think Tinman and arnie are right about "don'ts". I think you are right, arnie, that do's and don'ts is probably even better.

Quote "...But, Graham, how would you distinguish it from dos (the Spanish word for 2)?..."

Or even more relevantly, the US English computer term "dos" - an operating system.

And how would you distinguish between US (meaning the USA), "us" (meaning our group) and "u's" or U's" meaning several letters U?

Los dos dos and don'ts del DOS. A poemo-novel cum commentary by U Thant Jones.

The two us in the abbreviation US and the personal pronoun us are pronounced differently.

quote:

---

The two us in the abbreviation US and the personal pronoun us are pronounced differently.

---

Of course. But we are talking about punctuation, which is used in written communication.

But we are talking about punctuation, which is used in written communication.

Of course, and I was simply funning you. I usually follow the Chicago Manual of Style which suggests that simply adding a plural s to a single letter is enough. It seems that if your writing was really in danger of being misunderstood, you could spell out the letters: e.g., "Are aitches silent or not in Hawai'ian?" Seriously most of these punctuation problems can be solved by rewriting the sentence ...

So how would you say, "There are three "u's" in Tumulus and cumulus - are there any English words with more u's than that?"

So how would you say, "There are three "u's" in Tumulus and cumulus - are there any English words with more u's than that?"

If I said it you couldn't hear the apostrophes. But since you've brought up the spoken language, it's interesting how the ear is not as easily fooled as the eye. I would never confuse /juwz/ with /@s/, but it's easy to confuse us with us. When the two words are used in isolation. In a well-crafted sentence, I doubt it would ever be a problem.

But seriously, I'd write: "Tumulus and cumulus each contain the letter u three times. Can you think of any English words with more us than that?"

But even your sentence can be written without scare quotes and the superfluous apostrophes: "There are three us in Tumulus and cumulus. Are there any English words with more than three us?" Not sure what the that in "than that" refers to. Tumulus or cumulus or the phenomenon?

This is really an example of a garden path sentence, because there's only one way to read them grammatically, but the "us" at first seems to be the oblique form of the first person plural pronoun.

From a web site whose url I forget (google "word oddities and trivia") comes this:

There are 9 U's in HUMUHUMUNUKUNUKUAPUAA (a triggerfish - RHUD2).

There are 5 U's in UNTUMULTUOUS.

There are 4 U’s in SUCURUJU (anaconda), SURUCUCU (venomous snake of Guinea), MUUMUUS (loose Hawaiian dresses) [all SOWPODS], and UNUNUNIUM (a name for Element 111).

Note: RHUD2 and SOWPODS refer to dictionaries, but I don't know what ones.

Here's a whole page of autograms, with such typographical marvels as An Autogram That Documents Punctuation:

Only the fool would take trouble to verify that his sentence was composed of ten a's, three b's, four c's, four d's, forty-six e's, sixteen f's, four g's, thirteen h's, fifteen i's, two k's, nine l's, four m's, twenty-five n's, twenty-four o's, five p's, sixteen r's, forty-one s's, thirty-seven t's, ten u's, eight v's, eight w's, four x's, eleven y's, twenty-seven commas, twenty-three apostrophes, seven hyphens and, last but not least, a single !

Quote "...Not sure what the that in "than that" refers to...."

It's a careless sentence, I agree. I meant "that" to refer to the number of u's (not the number of us - now that could geniunely be a problem!) and I only really wrote it as an eaxmple.

Of course, it's always possible to make a case for anything and I agree that there's little danger in normal communication of any confusion.

And in fact, I agree with what you seem to imply; I am very happy to re-draft a sentence if by so doing it reads more easily.

The only time when I sometimes have to retain a construction that I would prefer to change is when I am forced by some more important need to retain it. This, of course, happens very often in Limerick writing where the demands of scansion and rhyme often force an awkward sentence.

The only time when I sometimes have to retain a construction that I would prefer to change is when I am forced by some more important need to retain it. This, of course, happens very often in Limerick writing where the demands of scansion and rhyme often force an awkward sentence.

Yes, at least after you've made your argument, if they choose to go against you, they only have themselves to blame. Yes, in metrical poetry, the problem is compounded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Doyle:
From a web site whose url I forget (google "word oddities and trivia") comes this:

There are 9 U's in HUMUHUMUNUKUNUKUAPUAA (a triggerfish - RHUD2).

There

---

HUMUHUMUNUKUNUKUAPUAA. What a word!

A Collection of Word Oddities and Trivia, Page 10 is a site containing the words Chris mentions. Nate that this is page 10. There are 19 pages!

SOWPODS is an anagram of OSW (Official Scrabble© Words) and OSPD (Official Scrabble© Players Dictionary).

RHUD2 stands for Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition. This site contains such vital information as the shortest 2-syllable word, a word with 4 a's in a row, and an archaic plural of cow (which we've talked about before). No, I'm not going to tell you what they are.

Tinman

Yes, aput, thanks for that site! I hadn't heard of either autograms nor pangrams before.

I usually follow the Chicago Manual of Style which suggests that simply adding a plural s to a single letter is enough.

jheem, I am fairly sure that the "Chicago Manual of Style" does say to use an apostrophe with letters, such as "p's and q's." Perhaps I am thinking of another style manual, though. I think saying "Tumulus and cumulus each contain the letter u three times" sounds pedantic; I would never write that. Yet "ps" and "qs" just doesn't work for me.

quote:

---

Yet "ps" and "qs" just doesn't work for me.

---

What about "Ps and Qs"?

I am fairly sure that the "Chicago Manual of Style" does say to use an apostrophe with letters

"[Section] 6.16: So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple letters, hyphenated coinages, and numbers used as nouns (whether spelled out or in numerals) form the plural by adding s alone (see 6.82):

"xs and ys
the three Rs
thank-you-ma'ams
in twos and threes
all SOSs
several YMCAs and AYHs
CODs and IOUs
the early 1920s

"Not unexpectedly, there are some exceptions to this rule. The plurals of the abbreviations for page, note, and line, for example, are formed by doubling the letter: p., pp.; n., nn.; l., ll. Note also that in the plural abbreviation for manuscript the s is a capital (MS, MSS)."

Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., which is the newest one in my library.

I think saying "Tumulus and cumulus each contain the letter u three times" sounds pedantic

Yes, but I like being a pedant at times, and the words cumulus and tumulus beg for pedantry. In the end, it's either up to a person's taste or whomever is editing the MS.

I am surprised to see that because in most style manuals that I have reviewed they very specifically point out that p's and q's are acceptable to avoid confusion. I would be confused with xs and os for example. I surely agree if the letters are capitalized or with numbers, etc. In fact, some style manuals say you can use appostrophes in those situations, but I never do.

I like to follow the "Chicago Manual of Style," but for this situation I just can't. It doesn't make sense, and rewording it sounds stilted to me.

"Mind your ps and qs."

What could you possibly confuse ps and qs with?

I like to follow the "Chicago Manual of Style," but for this situation I just can't. It doesn't make sense, and rewording it sounds stilted to me.

So, it's not an authority you're appealing to, but logic and personal taste? It doesn't really matter to me. I think if italics were available I'd do what the section from the CMoS did silently above and italicize the letter: xs not xs. Looks more pleasing than apostrophes or foot signs.

So, it's not an authority you're appealing to, but logic and personal taste?

I suppose I should use the authority that I have always relied upon. Sheesh! I always seem to lose my arguments with jheem.

From now on it's "mind your ps and qs."

Sheesh! I always seem to lose my arguments with jheem.

I'm afraid you don't lose your arguments with me. You just give up too soon out of good manners or exhaustion.

Okay, just tonight I had this example:

Could you publish the A's when they are done?

I was speaking about the OEDILF dictionary. I originally (remembering this post today) wrote it as "As," but that doesn't work. So...isn't the apostrophe correct there?

Kalleh,

It's not a matter of being correct, but solely a matter of style. Personally I see no possibility for confusion using "As", so that is how I'd write it.

K., what arnie said. But seriously do you confuse two and too when you hear them in a sentence? "I want cake, too." ~ "I want cake two." For me only the former is possible. Within context, I don't think there's any other way to read: "Could you publish the as when they are done?" ~ "Could you publish the As when they are done?" In context, we know it means "Could you publish the limericks for words beginning with a tonight when they are done?" Without a context, how would I know that you meant limericks?

I suppose you are right when you bring up the "too" and "two" example.

Still, arnie, I thought I remembered your supporting the apostrophe in ps and qs a while back. Am I misremembering?

Is the reason you two (not too!) don't like apostrophes in that context because of the look? Or is it that once you use apostrophes that way, people will begin to overuse them? Or...is it that you are going strictly by the "Chicago Manual of Style?" Or is it just your preference, and this whole discussion is trivial anyway? Probably the latter!

Is the reason you two (not too!) don't like apostrophes in that context because of the look? Or is it that once you use apostrophes that way, people will begin to overuse them? Or...is it that you are going strictly by the "Chicago Manual of Style?" Or is it just your preference, and this whole discussion is trivial anyway? Probably the latter!

Let's see; in this order: (1) I don't like apostrophes in this case because of the way they look. (2) It's trivial, in that when an editor urges their style on me, I often acquiesce for the good of the organization. (3) Cuz the CMoS said so. But, that third reason was really for you Kalleh, cuz you're living in Chicago and all. I still say you should do what you want to. The English language will survive it. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

I believe that's the first time I've ever seen Crowley quoted in support of a language point.

For what it's worth, I prefer "A's" over "As". "As" causes a momentary confusion; "A's doesn't.

Tinman

Shu and I were at Borders tonight. As always, I was looking at the language books, and of course there was a "Chicago Style Manual" there. So...naturally, I checked. Now, I did not have a computer with me so I couldn't check jheem's reference. The Manual they had was the 15th Edition, 2003. Interesting finding!

The index had 3 references to "apostrophes with letters" and here they are:

p. 281, 7.16 Use of Apostrophe: To avoid confusion, lowercase letters and abbreviations with two or more interior periods or with both capital and lowercase letters form the plural with with an apostrophe and s. See also 7.63-7.65. [examples] x's and y's
M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s (or MA's and PhD's)

p.294 7.63 Letters as letters. Individual letters and combinations of letters are usually italicized. [example] I need a word with two e's and three s's. Roman type, however, is traditionally used in two common expressions. [examples] Mind your p's and q's; dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

p. 295 7.65 Plurals of letters. To avoid confusion, the plural of single lowercase letters is formed by adding an apostrophe before the s. The s is Roman even when the letter is italic. Capital letters do not require an apostrophe in the the plural. [examples] There really are two x's in Foxx; the three Rs.

Section 7.64 was not relevant, but I don't recall right now what it addressed.

Aren't they breaking their own rule with MA's above?

I give up way too easily!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

---

Still, arnie, I thought I remembered your supporting the apostrophe in ps and qs a while back. Am I misremembering?

---

I'd guess so. As I indicated in this thread earlier, I would only add an apostrophe as a last resort; there are better options usually available. Firtly you could italicise the letters, secondly you could change the letters to upper case. As a third option (often the best, but not in this case, I concede) you could recast the sentence.

The Manual they had was the 15th Edition, 2003.

Good find. Mine is the previous, 14th edition of 1993. They seem to have reversed their decision. Styles change, just like languages. So, if I were writing in the 90s, I'd be right, but in the noughts and you're right.

There is no entry in the index of "apostrophes with letters". Maybe enough people complained and they changed their recommendations. I know they made a lot of changes to accomodate computers (i.e., digital publishing).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,

One thing I found very amusing was a section on "alternative usages of apostrophes." They said something to the effect of "emotions are sometimes high" about the use of the s's apostrophe, for exampple with "Charles's book." So, they had an alternative section saying that they also accept "Charles' book," though they acknowledged that not all style manuals will.

Richard English: So how would you say, "There are three "u's" in Tumulus and cumulus - are there any English words with more u's than that?"
Chris Doyle: There are 9 U's in HUMUHUMUNUKUNUKUAPUAA (a triggerfish - RHUD2). There are 5 U's in UNTUMULTUOUS. There are 4 U’s in SUCURUJU (anaconda), SURUCUCU (venomous snake of Guinea), MUUMUUS (loose Hawaiian dresses) [all SOWPODS], and UNUNUNIUM (a name for Element 111).

Thanks to the wonders of pattern search, I bring you 9 more from one-look -- this being from what they are pleased to call "Common words only", which list also includes three of the words that Chris noted):

unscrupul(ous)(ously)(ousness), ununquadium [temporary name for element 114], usufructuary, musculocutaneous, tumultu(ous)(ously)(ousness)

In The Times yesterday they published a headline in their "This Day" column, that related to 1959.

The headline read:

EISENHOWER SEE TRIBUTE TO US DEAD

It took me some time to realise, as I was reading the item, that it actually meant that he had come to see the memorial chapel in St Paul's Cathedral which is dedicated to those members of the United States forces who died in World War 2.

My intial thought was that it was the tribute that had died and that it was a tribute to the United Kingdom.

Some punctuation in that title would have helped a great deal.

According to William Safire's book No Uncertain Terms the style manual for the New York Times specifically requires the use of an apostrophe for making plurals from letters because of their use of all-caps in headlines.

"alternative usages of apostrophes."

I know that the Chicago Style Manual says that you don't have to write s's, but after Richard's cogent discussion a while back on why you should (when you say "Charles es," for example), I am more and more admamant about using s's.

Today's headlines of our Nursing Spectrum was "Here's Illinois' Top Nurse" (unfortunately, it wasn't I ). Now in that case, you say "Illi-noise top nurse," not "Illi-noy top nurse," so I really think it nees to be written "Illinois's." It is so annoying to hear people mispronounce our state as "Illi-noise" so I hate hearing it pronounced that way without changing the spelling of Illinois. The s's rule here makes it so much more clear that it pronounced that way because it is possessive, and not because someone is mispronouncing Illinois.

and not because someone is mispronouncing Illinois.

Are you telling me that Illinois is not pronounced /IlInwa/?

Oh, gosh, I must learn that pronunciation method that jheem keeps talking about!

Like this: ill + in + wah, with the accent on the middle syllable. (And you realize, I'm kidding, yes?)

(And you realize, I'm kidding, yes?)

jheem, I wasn't sure! I thought so, but then I wondered if you were using that process of pronunciation (can't remember the name) that you and aput and Bob have been talking about.

that you and aput and Bob have been talking about.

SAMPA (and IPA). I believe the French wrote the name of your state in that manner after the local Native Americans, the Hileni or [/i]Illiniwek[/i] (which means 'people'). Not sure what the plural suffix is for these nouns.