Is it proper to omit periods after honorifics (Mr, Mrs, Dr)?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







25















I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g.




The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for reform in decades.




I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English?










share|improve this question




















  • 7





    It's the Economicalist. They're saving ink. ;-)

    – mickeyf
    Feb 8 '11 at 15:14






  • 8





    Which is surprising, considering they're a periodical.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:35


















25















I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g.




The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for reform in decades.




I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English?










share|improve this question




















  • 7





    It's the Economicalist. They're saving ink. ;-)

    – mickeyf
    Feb 8 '11 at 15:14






  • 8





    Which is surprising, considering they're a periodical.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:35














25












25








25


3






I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g.




The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for reform in decades.




I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English?










share|improve this question
















I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g.




The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for reform in decades.




I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English?







punctuation american-english british-english writing-style honorifics






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 2 '14 at 1:50









Sven Yargs

115k20251507




115k20251507










asked Feb 8 '11 at 1:09









Nick TNick T

64651123




64651123








  • 7





    It's the Economicalist. They're saving ink. ;-)

    – mickeyf
    Feb 8 '11 at 15:14






  • 8





    Which is surprising, considering they're a periodical.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:35














  • 7





    It's the Economicalist. They're saving ink. ;-)

    – mickeyf
    Feb 8 '11 at 15:14






  • 8





    Which is surprising, considering they're a periodical.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:35








7




7





It's the Economicalist. They're saving ink. ;-)

– mickeyf
Feb 8 '11 at 15:14





It's the Economicalist. They're saving ink. ;-)

– mickeyf
Feb 8 '11 at 15:14




8




8





Which is surprising, considering they're a periodical.

– Edwin Ashworth
Oct 27 '12 at 21:35





Which is surprising, considering they're a periodical.

– Edwin Ashworth
Oct 27 '12 at 21:35










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















15














It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper. I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper. (I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

    – rajah9
    Feb 8 '11 at 21:25






  • 2





    @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:38



















10














In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.



It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation. Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.






share|improve this answer


























  • Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

    – Peter Taylor
    Feb 8 '11 at 12:32













  • @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

    – Orbling
    Feb 8 '11 at 12:59











  • @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:40













  • @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

    – Orbling
    Oct 29 '12 at 14:41



















8














I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g. Mister, Mistress, Doctor- then no closing full stop is necessary.

That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics.



[Because id est and exempli gratia are two separate words, they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..]






share|improve this answer


























  • Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

    – ראובן
    Feb 10 '11 at 22:16








  • 9





    From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

    – JS Ng
    Aug 10 '11 at 11:45








  • 1





    @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

    – TimLymington
    Apr 6 '12 at 16:44








  • 2





    If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

    – MetaEd
    Apr 6 '12 at 17:05






  • 1





    @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

    – Kevin Fegan
    Jul 21 '13 at 7:45



















7














The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook. They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or Mrs. From AP Stylebook (2002):




Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs.; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes. These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.




And from Chicago (fifteenth edition, 2003):




15.16 Social titles. Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following:




Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr.





Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point.



As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all:




3.6.2 Titles of Persons In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu). [Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]




The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles. The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods. For example:




Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage):



[Relevant examples:] Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar




And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of The Oxford Style Manual, the entries are similarly consistent:




Dr doctor (before name)



Mr Mister. pl. Messrs



Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress)



Ms the title of a woman whether or not married (no point)




Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however. The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

    – sumelic
    May 3 '16 at 17:20








  • 2





    @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

    – Sven Yargs
    May 3 '16 at 17:28



















3














I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters. So - Rev. for Rev*erend*, Capt. for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc



But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous Mrs are contractions. A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning. Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following.



That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev the engine, Rev.' [your getaway driver is a clergyman!]; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare ]






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

    – Mari-Lou A
    Oct 2 '14 at 4:48






  • 1





    Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

    – codeshot
    Dec 27 '16 at 2:25











  • This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

    – James Robinson
    Nov 21 '17 at 18:02



















2














Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.






share|improve this answer



















  • 8





    "related writers" surely? :)

    – Benjol
    Feb 8 '11 at 6:35






  • 1





    I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:43











  • @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

    – Doubt
    Jun 13 '18 at 16:50





















1














I think it depends on the style guide. American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc. This is probably just the magazine's house style.






share|improve this answer
























  • A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:45



















0














I follow the following convention:



Male: Mr.



Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms



"No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation."
-Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8).



I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago. I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise. I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.






share|improve this answer

































    -2














    These are still abbreviations so technically should retain their full stops.



    If you use full stops after abbreviations such as ie. and eg. then writing Mr. instead of Mr would increase your consistency.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 12





      I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

      – CesarGon
      Feb 8 '11 at 8:26













    • There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

      – Tom Ravenscroft
      Feb 8 '11 at 8:31













    • էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:47











    • @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

      – Kevin Fegan
      Jul 21 '13 at 7:59












    protected by RegDwigнt Apr 6 '12 at 15:24



    Thank you for your interest in this question.
    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














    9 Answers
    9






    active

    oldest

    votes








    9 Answers
    9






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    15














    It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper. I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper. (I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

      – rajah9
      Feb 8 '11 at 21:25






    • 2





      @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:38
















    15














    It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper. I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper. (I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

      – rajah9
      Feb 8 '11 at 21:25






    • 2





      @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:38














    15












    15








    15







    It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper. I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper. (I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)






    share|improve this answer













    It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper. I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper. (I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Feb 8 '11 at 1:17









    John YJohn Y

    5,65612144




    5,65612144








    • 2





      I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

      – rajah9
      Feb 8 '11 at 21:25






    • 2





      @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:38














    • 2





      I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

      – rajah9
      Feb 8 '11 at 21:25






    • 2





      @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:38








    2




    2





    I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

    – rajah9
    Feb 8 '11 at 21:25





    I have read John Grisham novels, published in the U.S. and the UK, and have seen the same pattern.

    – rajah9
    Feb 8 '11 at 21:25




    2




    2





    @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:38





    @John Y: How does one define strictly proper in this instance? As dictated by a strict teacher a few years ago, or by Ms Rowling's American publisher's style-guide-of-the-moment?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:38













    10














    In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.



    It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation. Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

      – Peter Taylor
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:32













    • @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

      – Orbling
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:59











    • @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:40













    • @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

      – Orbling
      Oct 29 '12 at 14:41
















    10














    In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.



    It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation. Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

      – Peter Taylor
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:32













    • @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

      – Orbling
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:59











    • @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:40













    • @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

      – Orbling
      Oct 29 '12 at 14:41














    10












    10








    10







    In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.



    It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation. Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.






    share|improve this answer















    In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.



    It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation. Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 8 '11 at 9:35









    RegDwigнt

    83.5k31281382




    83.5k31281382










    answered Feb 8 '11 at 1:25









    OrblingOrbling

    4,62022029




    4,62022029













    • Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

      – Peter Taylor
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:32













    • @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

      – Orbling
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:59











    • @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:40













    • @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

      – Orbling
      Oct 29 '12 at 14:41



















    • Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

      – Peter Taylor
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:32













    • @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

      – Orbling
      Feb 8 '11 at 12:59











    • @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:40













    • @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

      – Orbling
      Oct 29 '12 at 14:41

















    Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

    – Peter Taylor
    Feb 8 '11 at 12:32







    Do you have a reference for the claim that it's about age? I understand it to be a question of following Fowler ref

    – Peter Taylor
    Feb 8 '11 at 12:32















    @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

    – Orbling
    Feb 8 '11 at 12:59





    @Peter Taylor: No reference, just experience. The general usage tends to trickle in slowly, regardless of the initial source of change. Good reference though.

    – Orbling
    Feb 8 '11 at 12:59













    @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:40







    @Orbling: Perhaps, in the UK, e.g. has enough history now to allow the dropping of one of the full stops?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:40















    @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

    – Orbling
    Oct 29 '12 at 14:41





    @EdwinAshworth: Whilst still formally included, the middle fullstop in e.g. is very regularly omitted these days. Indeed, I am quite sure I see it absent more than present.

    – Orbling
    Oct 29 '12 at 14:41











    8














    I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g. Mister, Mistress, Doctor- then no closing full stop is necessary.

    That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics.



    [Because id est and exempli gratia are two separate words, they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..]






    share|improve this answer


























    • Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

      – ראובן
      Feb 10 '11 at 22:16








    • 9





      From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

      – JS Ng
      Aug 10 '11 at 11:45








    • 1





      @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

      – TimLymington
      Apr 6 '12 at 16:44








    • 2





      If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

      – MetaEd
      Apr 6 '12 at 17:05






    • 1





      @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

      – Kevin Fegan
      Jul 21 '13 at 7:45
















    8














    I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g. Mister, Mistress, Doctor- then no closing full stop is necessary.

    That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics.



    [Because id est and exempli gratia are two separate words, they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..]






    share|improve this answer


























    • Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

      – ראובן
      Feb 10 '11 at 22:16








    • 9





      From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

      – JS Ng
      Aug 10 '11 at 11:45








    • 1





      @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

      – TimLymington
      Apr 6 '12 at 16:44








    • 2





      If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

      – MetaEd
      Apr 6 '12 at 17:05






    • 1





      @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

      – Kevin Fegan
      Jul 21 '13 at 7:45














    8












    8








    8







    I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g. Mister, Mistress, Doctor- then no closing full stop is necessary.

    That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics.



    [Because id est and exempli gratia are two separate words, they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..]






    share|improve this answer















    I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g. Mister, Mistress, Doctor- then no closing full stop is necessary.

    That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics.



    [Because id est and exempli gratia are two separate words, they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..]







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Feb 10 '11 at 15:03

























    answered Feb 8 '11 at 21:19









    fortunate1fortunate1

    1,1111917




    1,1111917













    • Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

      – ראובן
      Feb 10 '11 at 22:16








    • 9





      From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

      – JS Ng
      Aug 10 '11 at 11:45








    • 1





      @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

      – TimLymington
      Apr 6 '12 at 16:44








    • 2





      If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

      – MetaEd
      Apr 6 '12 at 17:05






    • 1





      @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

      – Kevin Fegan
      Jul 21 '13 at 7:45



















    • Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

      – ראובן
      Feb 10 '11 at 22:16








    • 9





      From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

      – JS Ng
      Aug 10 '11 at 11:45








    • 1





      @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

      – TimLymington
      Apr 6 '12 at 16:44








    • 2





      If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

      – MetaEd
      Apr 6 '12 at 17:05






    • 1





      @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

      – Kevin Fegan
      Jul 21 '13 at 7:45

















    Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

    – ראובן
    Feb 10 '11 at 22:16







    Ah yes, "exempli gratia." When I taught in a community college, I told the kids it meant "thanks for the example."

    – ראובן
    Feb 10 '11 at 22:16






    9




    9





    From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

    – JS Ng
    Aug 10 '11 at 11:45







    From The Elements of Typographic Style, “the Oxford house style […] is: use a period only when the word stops prematurely.” I.e. Mr, Ms, Mrs, Jr, but Prof. and Capt.

    – JS Ng
    Aug 10 '11 at 11:45






    1




    1





    @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

    – TimLymington
    Apr 6 '12 at 16:44







    @wfaulk: if Magister can be pronounced Mister when abbreviated to 'Mr', I see no reason why Mistress can't be pronounced Missus when written 'Mrs'.

    – TimLymington
    Apr 6 '12 at 16:44






    2




    2





    If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

    – MetaEd
    Apr 6 '12 at 17:05





    If you're going there, @TimLymington, ought that to be magistrissa?

    – MetaEd
    Apr 6 '12 at 17:05




    1




    1





    @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

    – Kevin Fegan
    Jul 21 '13 at 7:45





    @wfaulk - "...should really be "M'r", "J'r", "M's", etc...". These (Mr, Jr, ...) are a particular form of abbreviation, but not a "contraction", so the use of (') apostrophe would not be proper here. The apostrophe is used to form a "contraction", which is the abbreviated combination of two words, like isn't for is not, and it's for it is. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction like isn't, it is read as it is written. It is an abbreviation when read or written. Mr, Jr, ... (with or without the period) is abbreviated when written... but read as the full word.

    – Kevin Fegan
    Jul 21 '13 at 7:45











    7














    The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook. They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or Mrs. From AP Stylebook (2002):




    Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs.; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes. These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.




    And from Chicago (fifteenth edition, 2003):




    15.16 Social titles. Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following:




    Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr.





    Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point.



    As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all:




    3.6.2 Titles of Persons In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu). [Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]




    The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles. The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods. For example:




    Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage):



    [Relevant examples:] Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar




    And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of The Oxford Style Manual, the entries are similarly consistent:




    Dr doctor (before name)



    Mr Mister. pl. Messrs



    Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress)



    Ms the title of a woman whether or not married (no point)




    Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however. The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

      – sumelic
      May 3 '16 at 17:20








    • 2





      @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

      – Sven Yargs
      May 3 '16 at 17:28
















    7














    The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook. They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or Mrs. From AP Stylebook (2002):




    Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs.; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes. These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.




    And from Chicago (fifteenth edition, 2003):




    15.16 Social titles. Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following:




    Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr.





    Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point.



    As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all:




    3.6.2 Titles of Persons In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu). [Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]




    The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles. The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods. For example:




    Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage):



    [Relevant examples:] Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar




    And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of The Oxford Style Manual, the entries are similarly consistent:




    Dr doctor (before name)



    Mr Mister. pl. Messrs



    Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress)



    Ms the title of a woman whether or not married (no point)




    Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however. The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

      – sumelic
      May 3 '16 at 17:20








    • 2





      @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

      – Sven Yargs
      May 3 '16 at 17:28














    7












    7








    7







    The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook. They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or Mrs. From AP Stylebook (2002):




    Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs.; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes. These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.




    And from Chicago (fifteenth edition, 2003):




    15.16 Social titles. Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following:




    Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr.





    Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point.



    As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all:




    3.6.2 Titles of Persons In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu). [Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]




    The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles. The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods. For example:




    Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage):



    [Relevant examples:] Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar




    And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of The Oxford Style Manual, the entries are similarly consistent:




    Dr doctor (before name)



    Mr Mister. pl. Messrs



    Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress)



    Ms the title of a woman whether or not married (no point)




    Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however. The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names.






    share|improve this answer















    The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook. They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or Mrs. From AP Stylebook (2002):




    Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs.; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes. These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.




    And from Chicago (fifteenth edition, 2003):




    15.16 Social titles. Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following:




    Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr.





    Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point.



    As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all:




    3.6.2 Titles of Persons In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu). [Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]




    The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles. The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods. For example:




    Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage):



    [Relevant examples:] Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar




    And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of The Oxford Style Manual, the entries are similarly consistent:




    Dr doctor (before name)



    Mr Mister. pl. Messrs



    Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress)



    Ms the title of a woman whether or not married (no point)




    Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however. The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited May 3 '16 at 17:00

























    answered Jan 25 '13 at 2:41









    Sven YargsSven Yargs

    115k20251507




    115k20251507








    • 1





      Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

      – sumelic
      May 3 '16 at 17:20








    • 2





      @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

      – Sven Yargs
      May 3 '16 at 17:28














    • 1





      Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

      – sumelic
      May 3 '16 at 17:20








    • 2





      @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

      – Sven Yargs
      May 3 '16 at 17:28








    1




    1





    Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

    – sumelic
    May 3 '16 at 17:20







    Interesting that Oxford uses Cpl., Sgt., Lt. — these violate the general rule that a period is used only when the last letter of the abbreviation is not the same as the last letter of the word.

    – sumelic
    May 3 '16 at 17:20






    2




    2





    @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

    – Sven Yargs
    May 3 '16 at 17:28





    @sumelic: Oxford also specifies Mgr. for Manager (and Mgrs. for the plural), but Mgr for Monseigneur or Monsignor. Sometimes I think they just make this stuff up as they go.

    – Sven Yargs
    May 3 '16 at 17:28











    3














    I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters. So - Rev. for Rev*erend*, Capt. for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc



    But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous Mrs are contractions. A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning. Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following.



    That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev the engine, Rev.' [your getaway driver is a clergyman!]; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare ]






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

      – Mari-Lou A
      Oct 2 '14 at 4:48






    • 1





      Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

      – codeshot
      Dec 27 '16 at 2:25











    • This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

      – James Robinson
      Nov 21 '17 at 18:02
















    3














    I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters. So - Rev. for Rev*erend*, Capt. for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc



    But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous Mrs are contractions. A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning. Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following.



    That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev the engine, Rev.' [your getaway driver is a clergyman!]; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare ]






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

      – Mari-Lou A
      Oct 2 '14 at 4:48






    • 1





      Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

      – codeshot
      Dec 27 '16 at 2:25











    • This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

      – James Robinson
      Nov 21 '17 at 18:02














    3












    3








    3







    I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters. So - Rev. for Rev*erend*, Capt. for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc



    But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous Mrs are contractions. A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning. Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following.



    That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev the engine, Rev.' [your getaway driver is a clergyman!]; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare ]






    share|improve this answer













    I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters. So - Rev. for Rev*erend*, Capt. for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc



    But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous Mrs are contractions. A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning. Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following.



    That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev the engine, Rev.' [your getaway driver is a clergyman!]; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare ]







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jan 24 '13 at 16:27









    user36364user36364

    591




    591








    • 2





      "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

      – Mari-Lou A
      Oct 2 '14 at 4:48






    • 1





      Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

      – codeshot
      Dec 27 '16 at 2:25











    • This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

      – James Robinson
      Nov 21 '17 at 18:02














    • 2





      "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

      – Mari-Lou A
      Oct 2 '14 at 4:48






    • 1





      Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

      – codeshot
      Dec 27 '16 at 2:25











    • This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

      – James Robinson
      Nov 21 '17 at 18:02








    2




    2





    "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

    – Mari-Lou A
    Oct 2 '14 at 4:48





    "Logically" it would be M'r., D'r.; the apostrophe stands in for the omitted letters.

    – Mari-Lou A
    Oct 2 '14 at 4:48




    1




    1





    Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

    – codeshot
    Dec 27 '16 at 2:25





    Isn't apostrophe only used when the dropped letters are not pronounced?

    – codeshot
    Dec 27 '16 at 2:25













    This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

    – James Robinson
    Nov 21 '17 at 18:02





    This is a limitation of the typewriter, in traditional written English a contraction would have the r as a superscript.

    – James Robinson
    Nov 21 '17 at 18:02











    2














    Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      "related writers" surely? :)

      – Benjol
      Feb 8 '11 at 6:35






    • 1





      I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:43











    • @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

      – Doubt
      Jun 13 '18 at 16:50


















    2














    Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      "related writers" surely? :)

      – Benjol
      Feb 8 '11 at 6:35






    • 1





      I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:43











    • @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

      – Doubt
      Jun 13 '18 at 16:50
















    2












    2








    2







    Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.






    share|improve this answer













    Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Feb 8 '11 at 1:19









    Jimi OkeJimi Oke

    24.8k265102




    24.8k265102








    • 8





      "related writers" surely? :)

      – Benjol
      Feb 8 '11 at 6:35






    • 1





      I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:43











    • @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

      – Doubt
      Jun 13 '18 at 16:50
















    • 8





      "related writers" surely? :)

      – Benjol
      Feb 8 '11 at 6:35






    • 1





      I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:43











    • @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

      – Doubt
      Jun 13 '18 at 16:50










    8




    8





    "related writers" surely? :)

    – Benjol
    Feb 8 '11 at 6:35





    "related writers" surely? :)

    – Benjol
    Feb 8 '11 at 6:35




    1




    1





    I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:43





    I thought Americans and Brits were cousins?

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:43













    @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

    – Doubt
    Jun 13 '18 at 16:50







    @Edwin: One wonders when this difference first appeared.

    – Doubt
    Jun 13 '18 at 16:50













    1














    I think it depends on the style guide. American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc. This is probably just the magazine's house style.






    share|improve this answer
























    • A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:45
















    1














    I think it depends on the style guide. American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc. This is probably just the magazine's house style.






    share|improve this answer
























    • A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:45














    1












    1








    1







    I think it depends on the style guide. American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc. This is probably just the magazine's house style.






    share|improve this answer













    I think it depends on the style guide. American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc. This is probably just the magazine's house style.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered May 13 '11 at 17:59









    KatrynKatryn

    111




    111













    • A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:45



















    • A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

      – Edwin Ashworth
      Oct 27 '12 at 21:45

















    A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:45





    A belated thank you, Katryn, for a style guide that endorses my preferred usages. Just what the Dr ordered.

    – Edwin Ashworth
    Oct 27 '12 at 21:45











    0














    I follow the following convention:



    Male: Mr.



    Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms



    "No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation."
    -Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8).



    I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago. I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise. I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      I follow the following convention:



      Male: Mr.



      Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms



      "No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation."
      -Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8).



      I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago. I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise. I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.






      share|improve this answer




























        0












        0








        0







        I follow the following convention:



        Male: Mr.



        Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms



        "No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation."
        -Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8).



        I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago. I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise. I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.






        share|improve this answer















        I follow the following convention:



        Male: Mr.



        Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms



        "No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation."
        -Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8).



        I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago. I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise. I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 days ago

























        answered 2 days ago









        sas08sas08

        986




        986























            -2














            These are still abbreviations so technically should retain their full stops.



            If you use full stops after abbreviations such as ie. and eg. then writing Mr. instead of Mr would increase your consistency.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 12





              I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

              – CesarGon
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:26













            • There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

              – Tom Ravenscroft
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:31













            • էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

              – Edwin Ashworth
              Oct 27 '12 at 21:47











            • @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

              – Kevin Fegan
              Jul 21 '13 at 7:59


















            -2














            These are still abbreviations so technically should retain their full stops.



            If you use full stops after abbreviations such as ie. and eg. then writing Mr. instead of Mr would increase your consistency.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 12





              I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

              – CesarGon
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:26













            • There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

              – Tom Ravenscroft
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:31













            • էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

              – Edwin Ashworth
              Oct 27 '12 at 21:47











            • @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

              – Kevin Fegan
              Jul 21 '13 at 7:59
















            -2












            -2








            -2







            These are still abbreviations so technically should retain their full stops.



            If you use full stops after abbreviations such as ie. and eg. then writing Mr. instead of Mr would increase your consistency.






            share|improve this answer













            These are still abbreviations so technically should retain their full stops.



            If you use full stops after abbreviations such as ie. and eg. then writing Mr. instead of Mr would increase your consistency.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Feb 8 '11 at 8:21









            Tom RavenscroftTom Ravenscroft

            8931710




            8931710








            • 12





              I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

              – CesarGon
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:26













            • There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

              – Tom Ravenscroft
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:31













            • էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

              – Edwin Ashworth
              Oct 27 '12 at 21:47











            • @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

              – Kevin Fegan
              Jul 21 '13 at 7:59
















            • 12





              I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

              – CesarGon
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:26













            • There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

              – Tom Ravenscroft
              Feb 8 '11 at 8:31













            • էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

              – Edwin Ashworth
              Oct 27 '12 at 21:47











            • @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

              – Kevin Fegan
              Jul 21 '13 at 7:59










            12




            12





            I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

            – CesarGon
            Feb 8 '11 at 8:26







            I thought the correct form was i.e. and e.g.

            – CesarGon
            Feb 8 '11 at 8:26















            There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

            – Tom Ravenscroft
            Feb 8 '11 at 8:31







            There seem to be a number of possible variants:en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Variations_of_%22eg%22

            – Tom Ravenscroft
            Feb 8 '11 at 8:31















            էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

            – Edwin Ashworth
            Oct 27 '12 at 21:47





            էգ is one even I haven't had the courage to try.

            – Edwin Ashworth
            Oct 27 '12 at 21:47













            @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

            – Kevin Fegan
            Jul 21 '13 at 7:59







            @TomRavenscroft - if an exception to your rule can be made and accepted for different variants of i.e. -> ie. -> ie and e.g. -> eg. -> eg, then why not also for different variants of Mr. -> Mr and Jr. -> Jr, etc... ? ("eg" is listed without a period as an accepted variant on the page you provided).

            – Kevin Fegan
            Jul 21 '13 at 7:59







            protected by RegDwigнt Apr 6 '12 at 15:24



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



            Popular posts from this blog

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            迪纳利

            南乌拉尔铁路局