TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: New Grist: Conditional Plural(s) From:Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> Date:Tue, 18 Apr 1995 08:45:53 MST
Loren Castro <lfc -at- SOL -dot- CHINALAKE -dot- NAVY -dot- MIL> wrote--
Sentences like the following abound in DOD software documents:
"These plans shall be recorded in Software Installation Plan(s)
(SIPs)."
I call this a conditional plural. (Well, I have to call it
something.) I've never seen any mention, comment, or complaint about
this construction, so I might be the only person in the world who
doesn't like it. This contrivance is awkward and impossible to use
consistently throughout a document. Logically, it should read as
follows:
"These plans shall be recorded in a() Software Installation Plan(s)
(SIP(s))."
This, of course, is laughable. Any opinion(s)(.)(?)(!)
=====================
Why not just make it plural and be done with it:
"These plans shall be recorded in Software Installation Plans."
Nothing about that sentence says that there *must* be more than
one SIP, right?
The (s) construction reminds me of another military habit:
following a spelled out number with its figure in parentheses.
For instance, "Three (3) copies of the software were...."
Utterly ridiculous (except maybe in legal documents).
Fellow sympathizer,
=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
=*= "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
=*= I am not representing my employer in any way." =*=
