3 ms·

Interesting. I've seen the apostrophe for acronyms which involve periods: e.g. "C.D.'s" (NYT has an article about this being their preferred style) I've seen i

Interesting. I've seen the apostrophe for acronyms which involve periods: e.g. "C.D.'s" (NYT has an article about this being their preferred style) I've seen it for one-letter words where you don't want to switch case: e.g. "dot your i's and cross your t's" But I haven't seen it in upper-cased abbreviations followed by a lower case plural 's'. Or if I have, I've assumed it's wrong. Would love it if you can refer me to a modern style guide which doesn't recommend dropping the `'` in this usage, as my own background has drilled into me that "IDs" is preferred for clarity.

crazygringo 6y ago
I just added a link to a Wikipedia discussion in my comment above, which should answer your question. It gives an example: > ...whereas The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage requires an apostrophe when pluralizing all abbreviations regardless of periods (preferring "PC's, TV's and VCR's").
- samatman 6y ago
  I would make a case that in our field, one which has an abundance of initialisms and non-period-separated acronyms, we shouldn't shadow the possessive. Consider "this script retrieves JSONs from all API URLs and validates them against their respective schemas" and "this function extracts the URL's fragment, if any, and checks it against a set of page targets". If you use an apostrophetic plural, does the latter receive one URL, or a collection of them? URL was carefully chosen, since you can't make a consistent ruling about initialism vs. acronym, I've worked with people who pronounce it "you are ell" and people who say "earl", and sometimes both! Absolutely no one is going to start spelling it U.R.L., either. Especially given the abundance of non-native speakers, let's not add a peculiar and ambiguous edge case to one of the more frustrating rules of English grammar.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    I'm intrigued, but I'll admit entirely confused, by your comment. First, I don't know what it means to "shadow" the possessive. Do you mean we shouldn't hide it? Although it always has an apostrophe so we're never hiding it. Second, I don't understand your examples. Your second example clearly necessarily uses the possessive, while the first is a plural, but the first would clearly be plural even with an apostrophe: > "this script retrieves JSON's from all API URL's" And since a possessive necessarily precedes another noun in this type of construction, it would still be clear: > "this script retrieves JSON's from all of the API's URL's" It's clear in speech and clear as written, even though the "'s" serves two grammatical purposes here.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > First, I don't know what it means to "shadow" the possessive. “Adopt a plural form identical in form to the possessive so as to create avoidable ambiguity between the two.” (Incidentally, that’s why the Times shouldn’t do it either, even if context will usually disambiguate it.) > And since a possessive necessarily precedes another noun Not necessarily a simple noun, though, it could be a noun phrase. In practice, this will usually be disambiguated by context still, but merging the possessive and plural means that there will be more situations where you have to process more context to disambiguate meaning, which distracts from whatever your purpose was in reading the material in the first place. Reducing the inherent redundancy in natural language reduces quality and clarity of communication.

crazygringo 6y ago

I just added a link to a Wikipedia discussion in my comment above, which should answer your question. It gives an example: > ...whereas The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage requires an apostrophe when pluralizing all abbreviations regardless of periods (preferring "PC's, TV's and VCR's").

samatman 6y ago
I would make a case that in our field, one which has an abundance of initialisms and non-period-separated acronyms, we shouldn't shadow the possessive. Consider "this script retrieves JSONs from all API URLs and validates them against their respective schemas" and "this function extracts the URL's fragment, if any, and checks it against a set of page targets". If you use an apostrophetic plural, does the latter receive one URL, or a collection of them? URL was carefully chosen, since you can't make a consistent ruling about initialism vs. acronym, I've worked with people who pronounce it "you are ell" and people who say "earl", and sometimes both! Absolutely no one is going to start spelling it U.R.L., either. Especially given the abundance of non-native speakers, let's not add a peculiar and ambiguous edge case to one of the more frustrating rules of English grammar.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  I'm intrigued, but I'll admit entirely confused, by your comment. First, I don't know what it means to "shadow" the possessive. Do you mean we shouldn't hide it? Although it always has an apostrophe so we're never hiding it. Second, I don't understand your examples. Your second example clearly necessarily uses the possessive, while the first is a plural, but the first would clearly be plural even with an apostrophe: > "this script retrieves JSON's from all API URL's" And since a possessive necessarily precedes another noun in this type of construction, it would still be clear: > "this script retrieves JSON's from all of the API's URL's" It's clear in speech and clear as written, even though the "'s" serves two grammatical purposes here.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > First, I don't know what it means to "shadow" the possessive. “Adopt a plural form identical in form to the possessive so as to create avoidable ambiguity between the two.” (Incidentally, that’s why the Times shouldn’t do it either, even if context will usually disambiguate it.) > And since a possessive necessarily precedes another noun Not necessarily a simple noun, though, it could be a noun phrase. In practice, this will usually be disambiguated by context still, but merging the possessive and plural means that there will be more situations where you have to process more context to disambiguate meaning, which distracts from whatever your purpose was in reading the material in the first place. Reducing the inherent redundancy in natural language reduces quality and clarity of communication.