Apostrophe Apocalypse: it’s a spurious world
I like to spend time on Twitter. It’s a relatively new phenomenon for me – very new, in fact. However, there’s one thing about it I don’t like.
Forums on English Usage
Let’s say you find an interesting post on Twitter. You read it. Then you notice another interesting and related post, so you read that too. And, if you’re an editor and proofreader like me, you end up following some obscure link to some even more obscure forum, which sucks you in to reading and gawping at mass opinions on the correct placement of modern punctuation.
Mostly, it’s fine. However, I am realising that this is where the real enemies of good grammar and spelling reside. In between the knowledgeable and informative posts of the grammarati are some more spurious posts, masquerading as fact and booming arrogantly about their ‘good practice’.
Use of apostrophes to pluralise acronyms and abbreviations
Just the other day I found a thread debating the correctness of using apostrophes to add clarity to pluralised acronyms and abbreviations. The example being hotly discussed was CDs.
This is a real sore point for many grammar aficionados. After all, apostrophes are generally used to mean one of two things: either they show possession, or they acknowledge missing letters. However, it’s becoming increasingly common to see apostrophes used to pluralise acronyms and abbreviations in general.
Surely, it’s the start of a slippery slope? If apostrophised plurals are ok in one setting, i.e. acronyms, why shouldn’t they be used to create plurals of other words too? Grammar is nothing if not consistent, and yet this particular usage seems anything but.
Apostrophes have a purpose: possession or contraction
There’s an argument that an apostrophe helps the eye to read the plural more easily when it’s used in an acronym. However, there’s no logical reason to use an apostrophe to do this, since it shows neither possession nor a contraction; in selecting which punctuation mark to use to ‘add clarity’, why did the world choose the mark that is most likely to confuse and bewilder the greatest possible number of people?
Apostrophes don’t make plurals – where’s the evidence?
I am not the only person who believes, firmly, that apostrophes don’t make plurals. The Publishing Training Centre’s Basic Proofreading course states clearly: “Look out for the rogue apostrophe that many people insist (incorrectly) on adding when making a plural of an abbreviation of capital letters” (2005: p21).
Butcher’s Copy-Editing also advises: “Avoid the use of an apostrophe in the plural: NCOs is better than NCO’s” (2006: p118).
The New York Times states here that pluralised abbreviations should only contain apostrophes when the abbreviation is marked by full stops, e.g. M.D.’s. It firmly advises that apostrophes should not be used “for plurals of abbreviations without periods, or for plurals formed from figures: TVs, PCs, DVDs; 1990s, 747s, size 7s.”
The evolution of language?
But I digress. It’s so easy to find examples of reputable style guides that recommend not using apostrophes to make plurals.
Back to our obscure forum where up pipes Spurious 1, who says that ‘obviously’ the apostrophe in CD’s is there to indicate the loss of the letters –isc from Disc.
Er…
Really Spurious 1? #derp
By that logic surely you would have to write C’D’s – to indicate the additional loss of the letters –ompact from Compact?
Spurious 1 laughs condescendingly: that, s/he says, would be plain “RIDICULOUS!”
[Cue self-congratulatory slaps and guffaws.]
Spurious 2 adds “This si [sic] how language evolves, man.”
Ahhhh. So that’s it. Sorry, I didn’t realise the proper use of apostrophes was stopping the progress of the 21st century: my apologies.
Since when did we start re-branding our own errors as the evolution of language? Surely, evolution, in its true form, is a slow metamorphosis: a gradual, incremental shift that is barely noticeable? This, by contrast, is an ugly mutation.
Spurious 3 chimes in: “I will continue to add an apostrophe [to acronyms] because I strive for excellence…”
Excellence in what? Being confusing and, according to many, wrong?
The whole apostrophe debate, in my opinion, is getting more and more out of hand.
The fact that so many people do it doesn’t make it right.
The only thing adding an apostrophe to pluralise acronyms does is confuse people. Every time it happens it hammers another nail into the coffin of proper apostrophe usage. This is why, more often than not, our TV advertisements feature in their small print: T’s and C’s apply. This is why British students state their qualifications as NVQ’s, GCSE’s or A-Level’s. This is why our roadside vans sell us their FLOWER’S, BURGER’S and HOT DOG’s. This is why one newsagent decided to market its ‘New’s and Mag’s’.
What did I tell you? It’s a slippery slope.
Put apostrophes in plurals and GUESS WHAT? It teaches people that, to pluralise words, you add an apostrophe.
An apostrophe apocalypse
One thing is blindingly obvious: we are in the midst of an apostrophe apocalypse. Unless we can agree a consistent, logical and foolproof rule for the use of apostrophes, how can we expect people to use them correctly?
Rant over. I’m off to buy some CDs. Yes, CDs.
About the author
Lisa Russell is a copywriter, editor and proofreader from Berkshire, England. She is the founder and owner of Eloquence Editorial, the editorial services with an emphasis on partnership working and exceptional output – follow her on Twitter @EloquenceEd
Wonderful! I especially love it when you write: “Put apostrophes in plurals and GUESS WHAT? It teaches people that, to pluralise words, you add an apostrophe.”
I’m a writer, editor, translator and writing teacher. I spend far too much time tearing my hair out about this and other points of grammar and writing that seem extremely obvious to me. I despair to see that people think grammar is a matter of opinion, to be decided on a whim by anyone who feels like it….
Thanks Kathe, glad you like the post. I’m with you on the hair-tearing part: misused apostrophes drive me nuts!
Lisa – you are right – mostly – sort of.
However, I don’t think it’s “becoming increasingly common to see apostrophes used to pluralise acronyms and abbreviations” – I reckon it’s been going on at least since my childhood in the ‘fifties.
“If apostrophised plurals are ok in one setting, i.e. acronyms” you say, “why shouldn’t they be used to create plurals of other words too?” Well, the simple answer there is that they are acronyms, not words (more of that later).
But I absolutely agree with you that we should never EVER accede to the principle that just because a large number of people write something down, it is (or can become) correct use of the language. However, we do not have an ‘Academie’ and we are happy, generally, I think, to allow our language to develop organically.
In fact, we have to: English draws from several different tongues so to restrict a word’s use to its original form would be simply impractical: simultaneously following half a dozen different sets of grammar rules would be absurd. So we have built – and continue to build – that ever-changing ‘thing’ called English. The trick is to get people to care sufficiently (publishers and editors, I’m talking to you) to discern the difference between wheat and chaff – and, in many cases, right and wrong.
One affliction is the tendency to deliberately alter words or styles for the sake of being trendy or fashionable: it started many decades ago with brandnames based on bastardizing ordinary words (‘Weetabix’, ‘Kleeneze’ etc) and has reached the current fad of abandoning the use of capital letters entirely – first used, I think, by ad agencies and IT companies wishing to demonstrate cutting edge modernity (yeah, right ….).
Whilst I can sometimes find this extremely annoying, it does not usually prevent comprehension and this, above all, is the most important point: it’s what the language is for. However, it does cause problems with apostrophes (yes, I have finally got round to the point) in that acronyms are then spelled using lower case characters.
Add that to the fact that
1) some acronyms have passed (apparently harmlessly) into the language in their lower case form (tv, radar, laser, Aids and ok being examples – ok has been around long enough to become a ‘proper’ word by developing its own spelling in full, namely ‘okay’; does this mean future generations will assume that ‘ok’ is merely a contraction of ‘okay’?);
2) lower case characters are used in e-mail and internet addresses which ostensibly contain proper nouns, and
3) some acronyms are actually treated as words in their own right: you are as likely to see ‘tv’ written as ‘television’, for example.
and you can see why the much steeper slippery slope of ‘anything goes’ is dangerously nearby.
This last presents a major problem with the use of the apostrophe: it is not helpful to see the plural of ‘tv’ written as ‘tvs’, neither are the plurals ‘pcs’, ‘yess’, ‘nos’ (as in “How many yess do we have and how many nos?”) etc conducive to ready comprehension. The addition of the apostrophe in such cases is to AID comprehension and that, in my humble opinion, is exactly what it does.
It’s and its. Hmmm …. sorry to bring this up but you did say “Grammar is nothing if not consistent” which seems a rather brave assertion, given the richness of English (a polite way of saying what a pain it is that so many grammatical rules are riddled with exceptions). Those for whom English is not their first language often find English a tad confusing to learn – and it is hardly surprising, given these exceptions. Unfortunately, many for whom English IS their first language have trouble too: it is quite understandable that many wish to write ‘it’s’ as the possessive case because 99% of other words add an apostrophe followed by an ‘s’ to express this meaning.
I think the exceptions we already have are sufficiently great in number that we can allow the apostrophe a third job, ie indicating the plural of something that is represented by a lower case acronym. With the (often lazy and inappropriate) use of lower case letters pervading our lives, it is as well that we have a way of differentiating between a now-defunct ITV company (tvs) and more than one television set.
But is it then inconsistent to champion the lack of need for an apostrophe when the acronym in question is expressed in capitals?
I buy CDs too ……
Adrian,
Thanks for your reply.
I hold my hands up – you are right about my comment about grammar being ‘consistent’: it is difficult for non-native speakers to learn our language for exactly the reasons you describe.
I think what I was getting at is that grammar is a set of rules, and exceptions to rules, that, once learned, can be applied consistently. For example, once you know the rule for its and it’s you can apply it in every situation. Yes, there are annoying and bewildering exceptions that crop up, but overall the point of grammar is to create consistency for improved readability and understanding.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about apostrophes in acronyms aiding comprehension (I would say that quotation marks fulfill the role just as well without creating confusion) but I thank you for you sharing your opinions and adding to what is becoming a lively debate, both here and on Linked In!
Lisa
