apostrophes

nigelmercier said:
The plural of GPS is GPSs. Even if the plural rule for abbreviations was different (which it isn't), GPS is not an abbreviation!

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm#5.2.2
Click to expand...

From the opening paragraph of that:
matters of "right" or "wrong" are impossible to resolve definitively – the language is constantly changing, as are people's views on what is correct usage and what isn't
Click to expand...

There are no "rules", only commonly accepted style (hence my wording). If we worked for a respectable publication we would have a style guide. No-one from IPC has chipped in. Anyone with journo mates can maybe get them to list what their publication is along with what their style guide says on this point. Then we can turn this into an argument about whether we accept the Daily Mail style guide or that of the Guardian.

You'll note in my original post that I only researched this because I thought that "DVD's" was wrong. If you google "abbreviation plural" you'll find numerous references to it being acceptable in some style guides though obviously you have provided a counter example. Because there is disagreement (and not just amongst the semi-literate) on this particular case of a capitalised abbreviation ending in an "S" I believe it would be unreasonable to criticise its use. Personally I would never use "GPS's". I think that the lower case s makes the pluralisation obvious, an apostrophe potentially adds confusion with possession and people wanting to show their superior intellect would think that I had not considered my apostrophe use: The latter is why I tend not to subtle jokes on this forum: Even the fairly blatant ones get taken literally.

Anyway. There are no rules. There *is* commonly accepted style (which I'll distinguish from "popularly accepted style" by restricting the acceptors to those dealing with written language for a living, innit?). My argument is that in this case it is allowable in sufficient quarters to not fall into the realm of things I would deem "unacceptable".

I'm sure I'm missing something subtle with your "not an abbreviation" statement. It's not an acronym but I'm sure you've got something up your sleeve there: please share
 
nigelmercier said:
Yes it is, exactly that. Technically an acronym is a form of abbreviation (obviously), but different "rules" apply.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

Well at least the discussion is back onto a boaty example of something that's nothing to do with practical boat ownership.

I'll argue that GPS is an initialism. It is pronounced as a string of letters (Gee Pee Ess) rather than as a word (like "RADAR"). I agree that many sources would distinguish pluralisation of acronyms from that of abbreviations but don't agree that GPS would generally be considered to fall into the acronym category.

I'm sure you could find a definition of acronym which would include "GPS". But then you'd have to admit that a particular use of language is acceptable because it is acceptable according to some (but not all) sources :-)
 
Although I much prefer "GPSs", I was struck by how odd "photos" appears. Although undoubtably an abbreviation, "photo's" looks too much like a possessive to work properly. Perhaps we need to invent a new plural mark. I think I will try using a comma instead, as in: GPS,s or photo,s for examples.
 
johnalison said:
I was struck by how odd "photos" appears. Although undoubtably an abbreviation, "photo's" looks too much like a possessive to work properly.
Click to expand...
As is often the case, but this is an example of an abbreviation that does allow an apostrophe, even in the singular. I wonder though, how many people would write photo' or 'flu'.

I think "photo" is an anachronism anyway, I normally use "picture" or "image". Perhaps we need to start saying e-photo.
 
Last edited:
nigelmercier said:
The plural of GPS is GPSs. Even if the plural rule for abbreviations was different (which it isn't), GPS is not an abbreviation!

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm#5.2.2
Click to expand...
Baffled as to why you'd choose this style guide. However, each to his taste. This use of apostrophes is "in" in some style guides and "out" in others. And Fowler, the oldie that people love to quote, is wise enough to say both are acceptable. If "Oxford" lent credibility to language usage, we'd be claiming that the Oxford English Dictionary was an authority on modern usage. The linguists I know would choke on their beer at that notion.

I am baffled by the need, in this thread, to be RIGHT. There are lots of acceptable forms. There's almost a kind of snobbishness about it - "I can say 'whom' in the right places, which makes me not a pleb". I have worked with half a dozen people who have made careers in the study of language, and they would certainly regard the level of self righteousness we see here as evidence of a pitiful misunderstanding of style in language.
 
nigelmercier said:
Doesn't matter if you agree or not, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Comparing_a_few_examples_of_each_type
Click to expand...
You're not seriously suggesting that because someone wrote it in Wikipedia it's right! I don't see the issue of whether GPS is an acronym as resoluble or even in need of resolution. I can find a notionally "authoritative text" to back up the most absurd of assertions. I find the forum's debates and airings of unalloyed prejudice thoroughly entertaining, but let's know them for what they are.
 
Twister_Ken said:
Strictly, GPS is not a noun but an acronym for Global Positioning System. Given that there are now three Global Positioning Systems (the US one, Glonass and Galileo) there are a few - very few - occasions when you might want to use the plural of GPS as an acronym, which is GPS for Global Positioning Systems.
Click to expand...

My acquaintances who work in this area tell me that the generic term is GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) of which the American Navstar GPS system is only one example, alongside GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo. Calling a GLONASSS receiver a GPS is like calling a Dyson a Hoover.
 
nigelmercier said:
The plural of GPS is GPSs. Even if the plural rule for abbreviations was different (which it isn't), GPS is not an abbreviation!
Click to expand...

nigelmercier said:
Doesn't matter if you agree or not, it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Comparing_a_few_examples_of_each_type
Click to expand...

There are three problems with quoting that wikipedia page as an authoritative source:
1. You're quoting wikipedia as your source. Like, dude...Srsly?
2. It says that an acronym is an abbreviation (you said GPS was not an abbreviation)
3. Further down the page talking about plurals it mentions:
In some instances, however, an apostrophe may increase clarity: for example, if the final letter of an abbreviation is S, as in SOS's (although abbreviations ending with S can also take -es, e.g. SOSes
Click to expand...

I thought quoting AP or NYT style guides (which seem to crop up as being examples of guides allowing "'s") might be seen as being a little too American so I've taken a look at what UK news style guides are available.
Guardian and Economist don't add any exception for using "'s". BBC and Telegraph say use it to pluralise individual letters (i.e. "t's and c's"). The Guardian makes a clear distinction between initialisms and acronyms (the latter being pronounceable). The guardian says "BBC" is not an acronym as it is not pronounced as a word, but the BBC includes "BBC" under "acronyms". No-one says an acronym is not an abbreviation.

So? I did say that I wouldn't personally use "GPS's" but wouldn't criticise anyone for it. The only style guides I've found suggesting its use are American. Actually the NYT's justification is that their headlines are all caps and they can't use lower case to distinguish the plural from the abbreviation. The apostrophe is added for clarity and used then elsewhere for consistency. I think it is fair to say that "GPS's" wouldn't be used as a plural for GPS in any widely respected British publication (unless someone can find a style guide suggesting its use). Do you think its acceptability should be dependent on the "Location:" of the poster? I'll stand by an assertion that in a system with no authoritative "rules", if you need to be arguing the minutiae you're into territory where I don't think you can be picky about other people's use of language.

"GPS" is so too an abbreviation though. Even if it is, by some definitions (but not others) an acronym.
 
Last edited:
I've always considered poor punctuation, grammar and spelling on "teh Internets" to be a sort of cure for nobber syndrome. It drives me mad to read but I can understand it just fine and have learned not to tell people off for it, making my OCD just a little bit better. OK it's not actually a cure because the rage is still there, but at least the crazy doesn't leak out into the public domain quite so much...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top