On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:53:35 +0100, scott wrote:

>> That's a new one!  So, you're saying the plural of GP shouldn't be GPs,
>> because GPS is another viable acronym?
> 
> "GPS TO STOP WORKING BY 2020!"
> 
> It's not a case of should or shouldn't, just the option is there to use
> an apostrophe to denote plural for the purpose of making the text
> clearer to read. It's not normally needed for acronyms (more usually for
> letters or numbers), but it's incorrect to state that an apostrophe is
> never used for plurarls.

The style guide in use or context would determine whether or not you read 
that as "GPs" or "GPS".

Context would be the more likely indicator.  If you're reading a medical 
journal, it's not likely to be a global positioning system.  If you're 
reading a tech journal, it's not likely to be your doctor.

When writing, you *must* take the audience and context into 
consideration, or you will fail to communicate clearly.

There is no circumstance I can think of where "GP's" would be considered 
a proper plural of "GP".  It would *always* be a possessive.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message