In article , on Tue, 20 Dec
2016, Peter Duncanson wrote
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:46:17 +0000, Mike Fleming
wrote:
In article , Graham.
writes:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 21:58:29 -0000, "Moron Watch"
wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Muddymike wrote:
27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post
the corrected URL's.
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant
to this group which
makes light bulbs relevant to this group.
And at least one to post that the plural of URL is URLs and not URL's.
And another to post, that that's total rubbish.
Acronyms such as URL are pronounced using their component letters
as individual sounds thus YOU ARE ELL. Not as EARL.
While the plural of URL pronounced Earl would indeed be URLs
the plural of URL pronounced YOU ARE ELL is URL's.
The exact same applies to things such as MBE's, CBE's, and OBE's
HTH
Crossposted to APIHNA for a definitive answer.
I would have said tht the post saying it was total rubbish was total
rubbish, but it seems that both forms are correct. However, saying
that it differs depending on pronunciation is total rubbish.
Agreed.
http://english.stackexchange.com/que...of-acronyms-le
tters-numbers-use-an-apostrophe-or-not
My own view is that I wouldn't use an apostrophe and it looks wrong
when someone does.
Mine too.
Some years ago someone in alt.usage.english said that the use of an
apostrophe to form the plural of a set of initials was mandatory in the
"house style" of IBM, the computer company.
The purpose was apparently to make absolutely clear that the "s" was not
part of the string of letters.
That may be the case for IBM, or have been at some time in the past.
Conventions change. Abbreviations (whether pronounceable, like RADAR, or
have to be spelt, like URL) used to be spelt (if that's the right word!)
with dots (followed by spaces) after the letters. The spaces went,
followed by the dots - allegedly initially by the railway companies in
Britain, to save paint and labour time, though that may be urban legend,
around the 19th/20th century transition - but the dots at least remained
in typed and printed text, fading out gradually around 196x to around
199x. Now, an abbreviation _tends_ to be shown by putting them in
capitals, though with the decline of standards in general, such a
consistency has many exceptions.
I would hold that a lower-case s following an upper-case abbreviation
does not need an apostrophe, in fact that the apostrophe looks wrong: it
isn't possessive (except in the rare cases where it really is, such as
"the URL's middle section"), and it can't really be said to indicate
omission, otherwise there'd need to be one after _each_ letter in the
abbreviation. (Which not only looks weird, but is as tedious to type as
the dots were, which is why they evolved out of use in the first place.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
* SLMR 2.1a #113 * Tits like watermelons, sparrows like bacon rind.
- 03-22-97 Dave Beecham (quoted by
Gene Wirchenko, in alt.windows7.general, 2012-10-16.)