0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage

Hidden Plurals

Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph:
"Libya agrees to dismantle all its WMD"
Now, presumably, WMD = WsMD. But it does
look odd. Would it be better to go for WMDs?
R.
  

Top answer

[nq:1]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its WMD" Now, presumably, WMD = WsMD. But it does look odd. [/nq] It's short for "weaponry of mass destruction" in this case.

— Usenet

  • [nq:1]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its WMD" Now, presumably, WMD = WsMD.
  • But it does look odd.
  • [/nq] It's short for "weaponry of mass destruction" in this case.
  • Matti
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

16 Answers
0
[nq:1]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its WMD" Now, presumably, WMD = WsMD. But it does look odd. Would it be better to go for WMDs?[/nq]
It's short for "weaponry of mass destruction" in this case.

Matti
0
0
[nq:1]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its WMD" Now, presumably, WMD = WsMD. But it does look odd. Would it be better to go for WMDs?[/nq]
I'd go for "WMDs". That would be the usual way of pluralising an initialism.

Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
0
0
[nq:1]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its WMD" Now, presumably, WMD = WsMD. But it does look odd. Would it be better to go for WMDs?[/nq]
It's widely known that WMD = "weapons of mass destruction", so I can't see that adding an "s" is going to be much of a help.
Adrian
0
0
[nq:2]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its ... look odd. Would it be better to go for WMDs?[/nq]
[nq:1]It's short for "weaponry of mass destruction" in this case.[/nq]
How can you tell? I've heard "weapons of ..." rather a lot. I can't recall a single instance of someone saying "weaponry". From the first part of the article:

Libya agree last nigh
0
0
[nq:2]It's short for "weaponry of mass destruction" in this case.[/nq]
[nq:1]How can you tell? I've heard "weapons of ..." rather a lot. I can't recall a single instance of someone saying "weaponry". From the first part of the article: Libya agree last night to disclose and dismantle all weapons of mass distruction ...[/nq]^

Really? Are you sure it wasn't the Gaurdian?
Matti
0
0
[nq:2]Headline from Yesterday's Telegraph: "Libya agrees to dismantle all its ... look odd. Would it be better to go for WMDs?[/nq]
[nq:1]It's widely known that WMD = "weapons of mass destruction", so I can't see that adding an "s" is going to be much of a help. Adrian[/nq]
Unless each weapon is capable of more than one mass destruction. Is this possible? Then it would be "Weapons of mass
0
0
[nq:2]It's widely known that WMD = "weapons of mass destruction", ... "s" is going to be much of a help. Adrian[/nq]
[nq:1]Unless each weapon is capable of more than one mass destruction. Is this possible? Then it would be "Weapons of mass destructions". That would be an interesting concept[/nq]
I just want to remind you all that RPM means revolutions per minute. Or revolutionry per minute
0
0
[nq:1]Really? Are you sure it wasn't the Gaurdian?[/nq]
Not unless they've changed its name to the Daily Telegraph.

R.
0
0
[nq:1]Really? Are you sure it wasn't the Gaurdian?[/nq]
Btw, there is no such paper.
R.
0
0
[nq:2]Really? Are you sure it wasn't the Gaurdian?[/nq]
[nq:1]Btw, there is no such paper.[/nq]
Thanks for pointing this out. Happy Christmas.
Matti
0

Related Questions