So I was reading through Novocain in the workshop, and saw the following:
"I pushed my way past the EMT’s..."
I had some issues figuring out how to word the question appropriately enough for Google to give me an authoritative answer. When you're discussing multiples of some object that is described by an acronym, do you use the apostrophe, or not? EMT's, or EMTs?
What about when the acronym ends with an "s"? For instance, the nonsensical idea of POTUSs, or POTUS's?
No, you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviation#Plural_forms
Grammar Girl says it's a style issue:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/apostrophe-plural-grammar-rules.aspx
EMT is actually an initialism. An acronym is an abbreviation that you say as a word (e.g., FEMA, POTUS, etc.). Since you say the letters of EMT, it's an initialism. Both initialisms and acronyms are under the abbreviation umbrella.
As for the plural, in either case, it doesn't matter. No apostrophe. In the vast majority of cases, you don't use apostrophes for plural forms. The biggest exception is when using single letters. For baseball fans: e.g., Baltimore O's, Oakland A's.
The Wikipedia page disagrees with me on that last point, though, deferring to style. I hate subjectivity in editing.
In the case of EMT, "EMT's" is always going to look possessive. "EMTs" is always going to be the plural form. I'd fight anyone who says otherwise to the death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Plurals_of_letters_and_abbre...
So both are acceptable. For personal aesthetics I'd prefer simply -s or -es, same as preferring EMT over E.M.T.
But I don't know, what do you think reads better?
[edit] what he said.
I've always gone without the apostrophe, as it ruins my ability to describe a singular possessive if I don't distinguish. I've always felt it was logically correct, but never was sure about the grammar behind it.
Some things evolve a bit. I remember even as a kid that people would spell the word "okay" as OK, or even "O.K.", which look pretty archaic now.
From Wikipedia, a.k.a. the Contradiction Machine —
An acronym is an abbreviation formed from the initial components in a phrase or a word. These components may be individual letters (as in CEO) or parts of words (as in Benelux and Ameslan). There is no universal agreement on the precise definition of various names for such abbreviations (see nomenclature) nor on written usage (see orthographic styling).
So if it is a style choice, doesn't that mean a single work may have no difference in term for ownership and multiples?
'EMT's car' for owning a car and 'EMT's, car' for a list.
Since we are talking grammar can someone answer this: the word "wend" means to run through or hurry through something. " She wended her way through the crowded street." Question: do you always say "my way" or "his or her way" when using Wednesday? can you say "I wended through the supermarket." It doesn't sound right, but I don't know. DO you need " my way" to accompany the verb?
@Dwayne, no, because those are different usages. Plural and possessive take different forms except when used together (i.e., the possessive is plural).
I still think EMT's being the plural form is horse doo-doo. That can easily be confused as the singular possessive form.
@Cove, I have no freaking clue. My guess is using "one's way" with "wend" is an artifact of translating from Latin or Germanic. For example (and not to open another can of worms), the only reason we are not supposed to split infinitives is because, in Latin, infinitives are one word. So the rule became an artifact of our language, even though, in terms of readability, splitting the infinitive is completely understandable. (Oxford says splitting the infinitive is completely OK.)
So, in this case, I would say omitting "one's way" from using "wend" is perfectly fine. However, I'd also advise you to consider using another word. Not just to be cautious in usage but because "wend" is going to make most of your readers go to a dictionary and find it has a very simple meaning. In my opinion, it's also a pretty weak word. You could use something more common that would also convey action, such as, "she darted through the crowded street," or "she fought through the crowded street," or "she used a monster truck to drive over the crowd in the street." I think I like that last one the best.
Question: do you always say "my way" or "his or her way" when using Wednesday?
Damn that autocorrect :)
But no, you don't have to use "wend" in a phrase that includes "way". It is most commonly seen that way, but not exclusively.
In my opinion, it's also a pretty weak word.
Well, I think it's actually a fairly interesting word. And words like "dart", and "fought" do not do the same job. Where "dart" and "fought against the crowd" certainly convey some frenetic energy, not every situation calls for frenetic energy. My grandmother is no longer capable of darting, or even for the most part fighting... but she can wend like no one's business.
I also like the connotations of wend. You wend your way through narrow streets, or darkened forests, or crowded shopping markets. It's never a straight line, but it's not meandering. Wend evokes twists and turns and moving around obstacles, but guided and purposeful.
It's a perfectly valid, if somewhat old-fashioned, word.
I wasn't suggesting she use "dart" or "fought," but words like that imply more than their literal translation. I also wasn't saying "wend" was invalid.
My Webster dictionary says "wend" means to proceed or go on one's way. So, it's appropriate here, but what I'm saying is "wend" doesn't really suggest much about the condition of the action. To me, it seems about the equivalent of using a word like "move" that just states you go from point A to point B, but it doesn't suggest how. Did you take a bus? Did you leap on the heads of the people in the crowd? Did you elbow a stranger? Did you feel the breath of a homeless man on your neck as a fat man with a cheeseburger in his fists pushed you into the shopping cart the homeless man called home?
To me, wend is weak because it does little to evoke additional sensory input by implication. And I think sending most of your readers to a dictionary to have them return and say, "why didn't you just say proceeded through the crowd!?" could be a bad call, especially when it isn't really accomplishing anything more than a more common word would.
It's certainly preference. I appreciate flash in word choice, but I think it's important to consider the practicality of it. Given the alternative to use a more common word that implies more about the conditions of the movement, I'd go with that.
Also, in general, when in doubt about usage or meaning, I pick another word because, if I'm getting hung up on it, it's maybe a sign that my reader will get hung up on it, too.
@Tim - I don't follow you. If 'EMT's' can be used for both the plural and the possessive, because it is a style choice, how do you figure that won't come up? I'm not a fan of it either, just saying.
@Cove - I don't see any good reason to use the word wend, unless you are showing your character as being obtuse or to silly to use common words with their dialogue. I understand it might seem like a cool word and what not, but like Tim said they might just go to the dictionary; also they might not come back.
@Dwayne, it isn't really a style choice as far as I can tell. In specific instances (e.g., CDs versus CD's), maybe. I honestly think we'd be hard-pressed to find a style that dictated "EMT's" was preferable to "EMTs." In general, what I find is that apostrophes can be used in situations where the word might be misunderstood without it. The best example is single letters, such as A's and O's, which could be misunderstood as the article "as" and the gibberish word "os" without the apostrophe.
"EMT's" as both the plural and possessive form causes inevitable problems with understandability. If someone were to say to me, "it should be 'EMT's' because that's the New York Times' style," I would punch them in the nethers.
Violence aside, it does seem it can happen.
Sure, it could happen. Then, all you have to do is point out that "EMT's" is easily confused as either the plural or the possessive form and that using "EMTs" as the plural and "EMT's" as the possessive (and "EMTs'" as the plural possessive) addresses the confusion issues. Many disagreements like this occur among grammarians, and while most of them are settled by referring to authorities, some have to be settled by pure analytical thinking and persuasive discourse.
The thing about the English language that we don't learn in school is that a lot of it is up to the writer's discretion. If there is one rule about our language, it's that our writing should be constructed in a way that readers will understand it. All other rules serve that rule.
I wish more writers and editors had more confidence to question style guides. In the end, readers don't care about styles. All readers care about is that they understand what's going on in a sentence. If something in a newspaper doesn't adhere to AP style, nobody's going to start a blog about it.
At my magazine, we follow AP, but we have a style addendum that adds to and changes the things in AP that we don't like or agree with. We're constantly working on it because the only thing that matters is the style in our magazine remains consistent.
All of this is to say I get paid to sometimes debate effective stylistic, grammatical, mechanical, and syntactical rules that my writing and editing team will follow to produce a coherent magazine. There isn't one person on my team of 30ish that would debate with me for a second that "EMT's" as both the plural and possessive is superior to "EMTs" as the plural and "EMT's" as the possessive.
Mostly because they know about my nethers-punching tendencies.
The reality of writing (at least technical and trade writing) is that, as writers, style isn't our call to make. The editor's word is final. But, if anyone is interested in getting into editing as a career, I highly recommend you begin questioning styles. Figure out why the rules are in place, whether it's to maintain consistency or to ensure clarity. If a rule is purely for consistency and you see reasons for why "CD's" (New York Times style) as the plural is a bad call, make a case for it, and if you really believe in it, fight for it.
This kind of analytical thinking is tiresome, but it's invaluable to your abilities as a writer. Once you understand the rules, understand why they're in place. When you understand the logic behind the rules, understand you have the freedom to bend and break them as long as you continue to serve that ultimate purpose: creating clear and concise writing that optimally conveys your message to your reader.
Everything else is secondary.
