Conference thebay::joyoflex

>	If you are forced to pluralize an acronym, do you
>	for some reason use an apostrophe?

	Nope, that would make it a possesive.  You should not use
	apostrophes with TLAs, unless your emphasizing the TLAs'
	or a particular TLA's possessive qualities.

		-- C

According to my "Handbook for Technical Writing," 

	Form the plural of an acronym or an initialism 
	by adding an `s'.  Do not use an apostophe unless
        confusion would result.

	Examples: MIRVs, CRTs, GI's

So I guess it would be "WAGs."

Clay

	Thought so.  I thank you, and the rest of the proposal team
	thanks you.

	-Jim

    Re: .2
    
    > Do not use an apostrophe unless confusion would result.
    
    > Examples: MIRVs, CRTs, GI's
    
    What confusion would result from GIs?
    
    Bernie  

    From a U.S. junior high school textbook, I learned that apostrophes
    ARE supposed to be used when pluralizing acronyms.  I didn't trust
    it though, and now try to avoid it.  Recently in one case I did
    think it necessary to apostrophize one pluralization of an acronym,
    but can't remember what the reason was.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

But if you're referring to the TLA itself, you should use 's to form the
plural of a TLA.  For example, there are two TLA's in the previous
sentence.    If were talking about TQEs and XQPs, however, the result
would be different.  Now there are two TLAs in the previous sentence;
namely, TQE and XQP.   See the difference?

Dave C.

               <<< Note 944.6 by STAR::CANTOR "Have pun, will babble." >>>
                 -< Except when referring to the TLA itself. >-

�But if you're referring to the TLA itself, you should use 's to form the
�plural of a TLA.  For example, there are two TLA's in the previous
�sentence.    If were talking about TQEs and XQPs, however, the result
�would be different.  Now there are two TLAs in the previous sentence;
�namely, TQE and XQP.   See the difference?
    
    Well, yes, eventually. But whatever the context "TLA's" _looks_
    uncouth. I'd avoid it in your example by writing `...there are two
    occurrences of the expression "TLA" in the..."
    
    b

When I was at school I was taught to put dots after each letter of an acronym
as in T.L.A.  This looks very old-fashioned now.

If one does use the old form though, I prefer the plural form M.P.'s to M.P.s. 

Jon

    OK, I'll bite.  What the heck are TLAs?  Three-letter acronyms?  I
    agree with using quotation marks if you're talking about how many times
    the particular acronym appears (there are way too many "TLA"s in any
    given paragraph).
    
    I don't understand why "GIs" would lead to confusion, either.
    
    My only concession to using apostrophes with non-possessive acronyms is
    WHEN I HAVE TO SHOUT ABOUT, SAY, A BUNCH OF OUTSTANDING PO'S.  I don't
    think it's correct, but I think it calls less attention to itself than
    OUTSTANDING POS.  (I don't like to shout, but sometimes my esteemed
    colleagues feel that headings, titles and subtitles need to be shouted.)
    
    Leslie

    "GI" can refere either a member of the U.S. Army, or to "gastro-
    intestinal", generally meaning unpleasant tests.  E.g., let's run
    a GI series on that GI complaining of stomach pains.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re: .10
    
    > "GI" can refer either a member of the U.S. Army, or to 
    > "gastrointestinal", generally meaning unpleasant tests.  E.g.,
    > let's run a GI series on that GI complaining of stomach pains.
    
    But how does using "GI's" tell the reader what meaning is intended?  The
    meaning of any acronym should be clear from the context or should have
    been explained earlier.  A consistent use of the apostrophe only for
    the plural causes no confusion.  "GIs" means more than one GI, whether
    it is a soldier or a medical procedure.
    
    Bernie

re: .11

I agree.  The book picked a bad example.  I think that the confusion might be 
that a reader might think that there is a word "gis."

I've tried to come up with a better example.  Suppose we had on organizational 
unit called a "business unit."  And we referred to them by the acronym* "bu".  
The plural of "bu" would be "bu's", not "bus", because "bus" would be 
confusing.

*Actually, the book I quoted earlier would differentiates with acronyms (such 
as VAX, which are pronounced as wordss) and initialisms (such as VMS that are 
pronounced as separate letters).  Any example that I can think of in which I'd 
use the apostrophe are initialisms.  

Clay  

    .12> Suppose we had on organizational unit called a "business unit."  
       > And we referred to them by the acronym* "bu".  The plural of "bu" 
       > would be "bu's", not "bus"
     
    Perhaps, if we had no shift keys on our keyboards.  I'd think the
    acronym would be BU and the plural of BU would be BUs.
    
    Leslie                                    

    GI doesn't appear to be a good example of a TLA that requires an
    apostrophe to avoid confusion.  There are, however, TLAs that become
    different words when "s" is added -- for the life of me, I can't think
    of an example. 
    
    					andrew

    The Digital Corp. Style Guide also says not to use the apostrophe.

    The Chicago Manual suggests no apostrophe for plurals except in the
    following cases:
    
    	abbreviations with periods (e.g., M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s)
    	
    	lowercase letters used as nouns (e.g., x's and y's)
    	
    	capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added
    		(e.g., S's, A's, I's, SOS's)
    
    Even "SOSs" seems straightforward to me. Maybe "DoDs" or "MoDs" would
    be confusing?
    
    -Tom
                                                                

    Re .12
    
    >Suppose we had on organizational unit called a "business unit."
    >And we referred to them by the acronym* "bu".  The plural of "bu"
    >would be "bu's", not "bus", because "bus" would be confusing.
    
    But we DO have an organizational unit called "bu."  It's spelled "��"
    and it means "department."  But the plural is also spelled "��" --
    no "s" and no apostrophe.
    
    (And the word "bucho," which might be more familiar to readers of
    this conference, is spelled "��Ĺ" and means "department manager.")

re: .16

So nice to see someone use e.g.'s correctly, and to not confuse them is 
i.e.'s.

Clay