I'll never stop marveling at NY Times' use of apostrophes to form plurals of initialisms. It's a valid choice. I just don't get the why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Share
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Author of "It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences" and "Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies"
New!
You know, like grammar and stuff.
June Casagrande
Author of "It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences" and "Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies"
It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences
New!
"Mortal Syntax: 101 Language Choices That Will Get You Clobbered By the Grammar Snobs"
Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies
Amazon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(90)
-
▼
July
(13)
- My Computer's (Lack of a) Way with Words
- Fun Stuff Shamelessly Pilfered from Twitter
- My New Book's Out Today!
- More Parson Larsson: Million-dollar Dialogue – Fiv...
- More Parsing Larsson: Querying the Great Beyond
- Copy Editor Confessions
- Copy Edit du Jour
- The ABCs of Editing: Always read at least the firs...
- Copy Editing Conundrum du Jour
- Call Me King Christie Dickens
- More Parsing Larsson: Verb Inventory
- Parsing Larsson
- NY Times' Sassy Apostrophes
-
▼
July
(13)
Posts
1 comment:
Using both apostrophes and dots at the same time is a new one on me.
I think of the pluralising apostrophe as an informal style choice and dots after the letters as a formal style choice, so for me they sort of counteract each other.
Post a Comment