Timeline for What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym / initialism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2021 at 17:35 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | (And imho the tiny number of "false positives" caused by GB not being case-sensitive can't possibly be enough to affect the broad thrust of my argument here.) | |
| Feb 11, 2021 at 17:33 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @StevenJeuris: I only found out a few days ago that my links to Google Books searches don't last indefinitely. Also, GB no longer provides "guesstimate number of hits". But if you enter the text "OSs" unix windows linux into GB (and repeat with the other two alternatives, always enclosing them in quotes to prevent GB from "helpfully" accepting "close matches") you should be easily able to see the difference in numbers. I always switch the display from "sorted by relevance" to "sorted by date" to force greater accuracy as well. Try scrolling to the last page of each such search! | |
| Feb 11, 2021 at 17:16 | comment | added | Steven Jeuris | I tried following those links too, and they did not work. :( Now trying to rerun the search, I notice that the search doesn't seem to be case sensitive (haven't found a setting yet), thus "OSs" for me also returns "oss" and "OSS". | |
| Feb 11, 2021 at 17:11 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @StevenJeuris: It's true that I cited three different "authorities" (Wikipedia, wordreference, CMOS) all reflecting my own thinking here, but it wouldn't really make any difference if all three had explicitly ruled against my position. So far as I'm concerned, those figures from Google Books are all I need to make my argument unassailable. It's irrelevant what the "authorities" say if it conflicts with what people actually do. Even if those GB figures are "inaccurate" (which I've no reason to suppose), the ratios are way too big to argue with unless you're a prescriptivist. | |
| Feb 11, 2021 at 16:10 | comment | added | Steven Jeuris | The Wikipedia link does not say to use an apostrophe or not one way or the other (maybe it has updated since you linked to it). I wouldn't call the wordreference of a single Q&A authoritative, and the last link (CMOS) is dead. In short, your sources do not seem to back up your initial claim, or at least no longer. | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 21, 2018 at 15:27 | comment | added | CCTO | FumbleFingers and tcrosley: Formally, trademarks are adjectives, conveniently invariant in English, so in formal usage we have iPhone 4 phones, iPhone 4s phones, and so forth. Informally of course (and "informally" is pretty much everything) you can use any adjective as a noun if you think the meaning is clear (three larges and two XL's, please, but no reds). For sure I'd use the apostrophe for 4's and 4s's. (source: inta.org/Media/Documents/2012_TMUseMediaInternetPublishing.pdf) | |
| Jun 9, 2017 at 20:20 | comment | added | ZygD | This test does not include the "OS" option which would imply plural (the 3rd option in the question). | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 3:44 | comment | added | tcrosley | Besides tchrist's example using Nikon lenses, we now have iPhone models 4, 4s, 5, 5s, 6, 6s, 6 Plus and 6s Plus. How to form the plural of those without causing confusion. I think you have to use apostrophes. | |
| Feb 26, 2012 at 1:36 | comment | added | MrHen | @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. | |
| Feb 25, 2012 at 1:35 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @MrHen: Why? Look at the actual results. They seem accurate to me. Even if they're not 100% accurate, do you seriously think GB is going to be 600% out, and that OS's occurs in print as often as OSs? I don't see your point. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 23:42 | comment | added | MrHen | @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. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 21:48 | history | edited | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 356 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2012 at 6:22 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @MrHen: You need to constantly re-evaluate your thinking. It's pretty obvious the backroom boys at GB are constantly updating their software, and it won't have escaped their notice that we keep including apostrophes in our search terms. I looked at that resultset, and it seems to me they are now pretty accurate at detecting, indexing, and retrieving apostrophes - esp. on recent text such as would include CD's. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 5:29 | comment | added | MrHen | I would be very skeptical of any searches that include apostrophes. | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 5:14 | history | edited | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2012 at 1:27 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @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". | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 1:15 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | 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? | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 1:11 | history | edited | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 92 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2012 at 1:06 | history | answered | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |