Language desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7

Plural of acronyms ending with S

An “s” is added for form the plural of acronyms, e.g. VOCs or PCBs. Is there an official grammar rule in English concerning whether there is an “s” for the plural form of acronyms ending with a capital “S”? Examples include EPSs, NPSs, ODSs, TBARSs or PFASs. Is there perhaps a difference between American and British English? --Leyo 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For lack of an official English grammar authority, there is no official grammar rule for anything in English. There are plenty of self-appointed grammar authorities, which may freely contradict each other. Major newspapers have their own style guides, which may or may not cover this issue, but these also do not always agree. In actual uses we see "OS's", "OS'es", "OSs" and "OSes". I think all are fine. --Lambiam 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the 's version. Known derisively as the greengrocer's apostrophe, it is deprecated by nearly all major style guides. It should be noted that "there is not one authority" is not the same as "it's a free-for-all, make up your own rules" There are still widely respected and followed rules for Standard English, in both speech and writing, and it is generally advised that formal writing of all sorts follow these accepted conventions, even in the absence of someone to fine or arrest you for breaking the rules. --Jayron 32 18:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite the same as the greengrocer's apostrophe. See Apostrophe#Use in forming some plurals, which says: "An apostrophe is used by some writers to form a plural for abbreviations, initials including acronyms, and symbols, especially where adding just s rather than 's may leave meaning ambiguous or presentation inelegant." --Theurgist (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the apostrophe represents the missing letters, unlike the greengrocer's variety where it represents nothing. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Used by some writers" does not mean "Recommended for formal writing in standard English by well-regarded style guides". Again, noting the reality of non-standard usage does NOT mean the same thing as "there is no such thing as standard usage". --Jayron 32 20:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much interested in what style guides recommend, but until about 50-60 years ago it was standard to put an apostrophe between anything seen as a non-word and an inflectional suffix. You saw this everywhere, yet now people assume it's an error and get all derisive about it. Usage has changed, but the older style still persists to some extent; that's all. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another method is to leave out the pluralization bit altogether. An example is RBI, which can mean run batted in or runs batted in. The debate over RBIs vs. RBI's or whatever is based on the notion that RBI is a word. But in baseball stat pages, the column is headed RBI, because it can stand alone as both singular and plural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. Honestly, I don't consider putting an apostrophe an option in this case. I am asking whether there is a rule for EPSs, NPSs, ODSs, TBARSs, PFASs etc. or, alternatively, for EPS, NPS, ODS, TBARS, PFAS etc. --Leyo 22:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me rephrase my question: In a text with “VOCs”, “PCBs” etc., which spelling should rather be used?

EPSs, NPSs, ODSs, TBARSs, PFASs etc. or
EPS, NPS, ODS, TBARS, PFAS etc.

--Leyo 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing here, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Plural forms says:

"Pluralize acronyms by adding -s or -es: Three CD-ROMs and two BIOSes were released. (Do not use apostrophes to form plurals: Three CD-ROM's and two BIOS's were released.)"

Otherwise, as noted above, there is no universal convention, but the Wikipedia recommendation seems to be the modern way of doing things. Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary of Modern English Usage originally compiled by Henry Watson Fowler ("a lexicographical genius") and the nearest thing there is to a rule book for British English says under the entry for "plural":

"10. Letters, figures, and abbreviations. All types were once normally written with 's: two VC's, the 1950's, etc. Increasingly now the apostrophe is being dropped in the following types: Blitts, MAs, MPs, QÇs, the sixties, the 1960s. But after letters an apostrophe is obligatory: dot your i's, mind your p's and q's."

There is an online copy of the 1998 edition here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I'm no prescriptivist, but I must insist that the plural of OS is OSes. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree with me on this. The other variations make my skin crawl. Temerarius (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is in trying to turn abbreviations into words. The plural of Operating System is Operating Systems, and both could be abbreviated OS. But if someone insists on pluralizing OS, then OSes could work, though I wouldn't count on it having wide usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your insistence, this site asserts the -s (and not -es) plural is the one to use. Me, I think I'd differentiate between true acronyms (like tardis) and simple initialisms that are spoken letter by letter (like OS). "These three tardises all operate on different OSs". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]