The Grammar Logs -- Number Forty-Two

The
Grammar
Logs
# 42

Question
When creating a plural form of an abbreviation or acronym, do you use an ('s) ?
Example: PDU stands for Protocal Data Unit
We have many Protocal Data Units.
We have many PDUs? or We have many PDU's?
I would've assumed the first: (PDUs) but a colleague at work said he thought it was the second (PDU's) and since I haven't been able to find a definite answer on the net, I thought I'd ask you.
Thanks!
Source & Date
of Question Huntsville, Alabama
17 November 1997
Grammar's
Response When creating the plural of an acronym or abbreviation, simply add the pluralizing "s"; otherwise, it might appear that you're creating a possessive form. I agree that someone might end up pronouncing your abbreviation as a weird acronym -- "What's a peedus?" -- but that's what the writing manuals agree upon.

Question What is the difference between past simple and past continuous? Would an example of past continuous be: She has been going to the opera for years, or, She had been going to the opera for years? I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer on this topic. Thank you in advance for your response.
Source & Date
of Question Prague, Czech Republic
17 November 1997
Grammar's
Response Our Table of Tenses might help. A simple past progressive would be "She was going to the opera." "She has been going" would be called the present perfect progressive"; "had been going" would be the past perfect progressive. The progressive tenses show action in progress or habitual action.

Question Dear Aunty Grammar,

I sometimes get confused when English meets science and technology. In particular:
"Car door" - is car an adjective or possessive or something else?
"Engine block" - is engine an adj or poss? (I don't think anyone ever says "engine's block" or "block of the engine".)
How about this one (the others were a warm up exercise)
"undulator magnetic field" - an undulator is a noun made from, I suppose, a verb, undulate. "undulator magnetic field" means "the magnetic field due to the undulator" or some such thing.
In this case is undulator an adjective or possessive or something else?
Thanks.

Source & Date
of Question Naka-machi, Ibaraki-ken, Japan
18 November 1997
Grammar's
Response In your examples, the words preceding the final noun are adjectives. In other languages, such as German, something like car door would quickly become one word, the noun and the adjective belonging so closely to it becoming one word. That will sometimes happen in English, also, in a word such as wallpaper. So it's not just a matter of science and language, although it may be more noticeable there because science is always coming up with new words and adjectives to describe them. Possessives are, in a sense, adjectival, but these are not possessives.

Question
If one were to describe something with a thickness of fourteen inches, would it be correct to phrase the description as follows?:
The sofa comes with 14"-thick seat cushions.

Source & Date
of Question Atlanta, Georgia
18 November 1997
Grammar's
Response I can't think of a better way of saying it, unless you said the sofa comes with seat cushions fourteen inches thick. Make sure your symbol for inches doesn't turn into a "fancy quote."

Question syringability or syringeability ... is this a word? if so, what is the correct spelling? ... or how would you reword?? "Good syringeability"
Thanks for your speedy help!
Source & Date
of Question Kalamazoo, Michigan
18 November 1997
Grammar's
Response Well, it's a word now! What does it mean? that something is capable of being drawn into or expressed by (delivered?) means of a syringe? that blood and saline solution are syringeable, but maple syrup and tar are not? I'd definitely put the "e" in there. It's probably worth re-wording, unless it's a word used in a limited context and readers will know what is meant by it.

Question Please help with the great comma debate in the office. I was taught a rule about using commas in dates used in writing for which I can find no current support in grammar books, websites like yours and other sources.
Where you write, "On December 27, 1996, I went to the movies," the comma is used after the year to set off the phrase. But where you write, "I have received your December 27, 1996 letter," there is no comma separating the year from the following word, which the date qualifies/describes.
I can't find any support for the latter rule, but I know I learned it in school. Can you help? Would you really write, "I have received your December 27, 1996, letter"?
Thank you.
Source & Date
of Question Unknown
18 November 1997
Grammar's
Response Sorry, I can't come up with the answer you want. For some reason, the year is always treated as parenthetical when the date includes the month, day, year, in that order. Thus, yes, you would write that you had received the July 4, 1997, letter. If you don't include the day, you can leave out the commas: We received the July 1997 letter. (In your first example, you'd have a comma after the year, anyway, because you're setting off an introductory phrase.) It might not make sense, but that's what all the manuals call for. Incidentally, if you write the date using the international pattern of day/month/year, you won't have any commas: We received your 4 July 1997 letter.

Question I am having trouble with modification clauses. WHAT ARE THEY?
Source & Date
of Question Opelika, Alabama
18 November 1997
Grammar's
Response I've never heard of "modification clauses." Do you mean "modifying clauses"? See our section on clauses and see if that helps. Both adverb clauses and adjective clauses would qualify as "modifying clauses."

Question
What is the plural possesive form of the nouns shown below:<
actress
class
Thank you for your assistance.
Source & Date
of Question Unknown
18 November 1997
Grammar's
Response The actresses' roles are getting better and better.
The classes' gifts to the high school are becoming increasingly expensive.

Question After a semicolon, can I capitalize? For example: My dad has two dogs; Teddy is big and ugly and EJ is old.
Is it appropriate to capitalize after a semicolon? If so, when is it most appropriate?
Thanks
Source & Date
of Question New York, New York
19 November 1997
Grammar's
Response Yes, you can capitalize after a semicolon if you're using a proper noun. (You'd always capitalize a proper noun, though!) Your sentence is not a particularly good example, though, because those two clauses are related in such a way that a colon might actually work better. Your first clause ends in an independent way and introduces an explanatory list, so a colon would work nicely. Most of the time, when you separate two independent clauses with a semicolon, you will not begin the second clause with a capital letter (unless it begins with a proper noun).

Question When a word is spelled the same as a singular and a plural (e.g. moose, moose), is there a technical term to describe that type of word (other than irregular plural)?
Source & Date
of Question Cape Coral, Florida
19 November 1997
Grammar's
Response Every reference manual I look in except one calls irregular plurals just that -- irregular plurals. Randolph Quirk's book calls them "zero plurals," which is certainly descriptive enough.
Authority: A University Grammar of English by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum. Longman Group: Essex, England. 1993.

Previous Grammar Log
Next Grammar Log
Index of Grammar Logs
Guide to Grammar and Writing

Question	When creating a plural form of an abbreviation or acronym, do you use an ('s) ? Example: PDU stands for Protocal Data Unit We have many Protocal Data Units. We have many PDUs? or We have many PDU's? I would've assumed the first: (PDUs) but a colleague at work said he thought it was the second (PDU's) and since I haven't been able to find a definite answer on the net, I thought I'd ask you. Thanks!
Source & Date of Question	Huntsville, Alabama 17 November 1997
Grammar's Response	When creating the plural of an acronym or abbreviation, simply add the pluralizing "s"; otherwise, it might appear that you're creating a possessive form. I agree that someone might end up pronouncing your abbreviation as a weird acronym -- "What's a peedus?" -- but that's what the writing manuals agree upon.

Question	Dear Aunty Grammar, I sometimes get confused when English meets science and technology. In particular: "Car door" - is car an adjective or possessive or something else? "Engine block" - is engine an adj or poss? (I don't think anyone ever says "engine's block" or "block of the engine".) How about this one (the others were a warm up exercise) "undulator magnetic field" - an undulator is a noun made from, I suppose, a verb, undulate. "undulator magnetic field" means "the magnetic field due to the undulator" or some such thing. In this case is undulator an adjective or possessive or something else? Thanks.
Source & Date of Question	Naka-machi, Ibaraki-ken, Japan 18 November 1997
Grammar's Response	In your examples, the words preceding the final noun are adjectives. In other languages, such as German, something like car door would quickly become one word, the noun and the adjective belonging so closely to it becoming one word. That will sometimes happen in English, also, in a word such as wallpaper. So it's not just a matter of science and language, although it may be more noticeable there because science is always coming up with new words and adjectives to describe them. Possessives are, in a sense, adjectival, but these are not possessives.

Question	If one were to describe something with a thickness of fourteen inches, would it be correct to phrase the description as follows?: The sofa comes with 14"-thick seat cushions.
Source & Date of Question	Atlanta, Georgia 18 November 1997
Grammar's Response	I can't think of a better way of saying it, unless you said the sofa comes with seat cushions fourteen inches thick. Make sure your symbol for inches doesn't turn into a "fancy quote."

Question	syringability or syringeability ... is this a word? if so, what is the correct spelling? ... or how would you reword?? "Good syringeability" Thanks for your speedy help!
Source & Date of Question	Kalamazoo, Michigan 18 November 1997
Grammar's Response	Well, it's a word now! What does it mean? that something is capable of being drawn into or expressed by (delivered?) means of a syringe? that blood and saline solution are syringeable, but maple syrup and tar are not? I'd definitely put the "e" in there. It's probably worth re-wording, unless it's a word used in a limited context and readers will know what is meant by it.

Question	Please help with the great comma debate in the office. I was taught a rule about using commas in dates used in writing for which I can find no current support in grammar books, websites like yours and other sources. Where you write, "On December 27, 1996, I went to the movies," the comma is used after the year to set off the phrase. But where you write, "I have received your December 27, 1996 letter," there is no comma separating the year from the following word, which the date qualifies/describes. I can't find any support for the latter rule, but I know I learned it in school. Can you help? Would you really write, "I have received your December 27, 1996, letter"? Thank you.
Source & Date of Question	Unknown 18 November 1997
Grammar's Response	Sorry, I can't come up with the answer you want. For some reason, the year is always treated as parenthetical when the date includes the month, day, year, in that order. Thus, yes, you would write that you had received the July 4, 1997, letter. If you don't include the day, you can leave out the commas: We received the July 1997 letter. (In your first example, you'd have a comma after the year, anyway, because you're setting off an introductory phrase.) It might not make sense, but that's what all the manuals call for. Incidentally, if you write the date using the international pattern of day/month/year, you won't have any commas: We received your 4 July 1997 letter.

Question	What is the difference between past simple and past continuous? Would an example of past continuous be: She has been going to the opera for years, or, She had been going to the opera for years? I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer on this topic. Thank you in advance for your response.
Source & Date of Question	Prague, Czech Republic 17 November 1997
Grammar's Response	Our Table of Tenses might help. A simple past progressive would be "She was going to the opera." "She has been going" would be called the present perfect progressive"; "had been going" would be the past perfect progressive. The progressive tenses show action in progress or habitual action.

Question	I am having trouble with modification clauses. WHAT ARE THEY?
Source & Date of Question	Opelika, Alabama 18 November 1997
Grammar's Response	I've never heard of "modification clauses." Do you mean "modifying clauses"? See our section on clauses and see if that helps. Both adverb clauses and adjective clauses would qualify as "modifying clauses."

Question	What is the plural possesive form of the nouns shown below:< actress class Thank you for your assistance.
Source & Date of Question	Unknown 18 November 1997
Grammar's Response	The actresses' roles are getting better and better. The classes' gifts to the high school are becoming increasingly expensive.

Question	After a semicolon, can I capitalize? For example: My dad has two dogs; Teddy is big and ugly and EJ is old. Is it appropriate to capitalize after a semicolon? If so, when is it most appropriate? Thanks
Source & Date of Question	New York, New York 19 November 1997
Grammar's Response	Yes, you can capitalize after a semicolon if you're using a proper noun. (You'd always capitalize a proper noun, though!) Your sentence is not a particularly good example, though, because those two clauses are related in such a way that a colon might actually work better. Your first clause ends in an independent way and introduces an explanatory list, so a colon would work nicely. Most of the time, when you separate two independent clauses with a semicolon, you will not begin the second clause with a capital letter (unless it begins with a proper noun).