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;
}
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
punctuation american-english british-english writing-style honorifics
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
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.)
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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..]
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, likeisn't
foris not
, andit's
forit is
. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction likeisn'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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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 ]
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
add a comment |
Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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 ofi.e. -> ie. -> ie
ande.g. -> eg. -> eg
, then why not also for different variants ofMr. -> Mr
andJr. -> 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
add a comment |
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
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.)
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
add a comment |
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.)
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
add a comment |
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.)
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.)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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..]
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, likeisn't
foris not
, andit's
forit is
. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction likeisn'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
|
show 4 more comments
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..]
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, likeisn't
foris not
, andit's
forit is
. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction likeisn'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
|
show 4 more comments
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..]
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..]
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, likeisn't
foris not
, andit's
forit is
. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction likeisn'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
|
show 4 more comments
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, likeisn't
foris not
, andit's
forit is
. There is another distinction... when you read a contraction likeisn'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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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 ]
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
add a comment |
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 ]
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
add a comment |
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 ]
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 ]
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.
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
add a comment |
Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.
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
add a comment |
Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.
Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. The British and related speakers often don't.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
sas08sas08
986
986
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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 ofi.e. -> ie. -> ie
ande.g. -> eg. -> eg
, then why not also for different variants ofMr. -> Mr
andJr. -> 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
add a comment |
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.
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 ofi.e. -> ie. -> ie
ande.g. -> eg. -> eg
, then why not also for different variants ofMr. -> Mr
andJr. -> 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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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 ofi.e. -> ie. -> ie
ande.g. -> eg. -> eg
, then why not also for different variants ofMr. -> Mr
andJr. -> 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
add a comment |
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 ofi.e. -> ie. -> ie
ande.g. -> eg. -> eg
, then why not also for different variants ofMr. -> Mr
andJr. -> 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
add a comment |
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?
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