I have a question related to already shortened words and their plural forms. As I have seen on this site and have found in the dictionary, words like mas and pas are the plural form of the shortened words ma and pa (as in mother and father). However, it occurs to me that were I to write this, in order to clarify the meaning of what I was trying to write (because if you are like me, you read mas and pas and did a double-take), I would write it as ma's and pa's.
Some words like cuz have a similar issue, although the pluralization makes more sense: cuzzes. Perhaps cuz's?
I know that in the pluralization of single letters there is some contention regarding whether there should or should not be an apostrophe (A's or a's versus As or as). "I got a lot of A's this semester." just looks better to me, although I have no grammatical backing for this. I'm not sure if this is the same for these types of words as well.
My question is this: Is there a precedent for using an apostrophe for words that are shortened to convey appropriate meaning, or is the convention simply to omit the apostrophe altogether and leave the word pluralized with an s?
One issue is that questions can be couched differently and look as though they are not duplicates, but cover essentially the same ground and often there is already an answer which covers the new question. ... – Andrew Leach'
– Edwin Ashworth Sep 16 '14 at 06:46