RPMs vs. RPM

[nq:1]I've noticed that in abbreviating "revolutions per minute" many people will write or say "RPMs." Would this not in effect translate back into "revolutions per minutes?" "...resulting in increased RPMs." (sounds right) versus "...resulting in increased RPM." (seems right)[/nq]
No. RPMs is the plural of RPM. RPM unpacks to "revolution per minute", the plural of which is "revolutions per mi

[nq:1]I've noticed that in abbreviating "revolutions per minute" manypeople will write or say "RPMs." Would this not in effect translate back into "revolutions per minutes?" "...resulting in increased RPMs." (sounds right) versus "...resulting in increased RPM." (seems right)[/nq]
Similar to RBI (Run Batted In for you non-baseball types). For the plural, some people say RBIs, some say RBI.

RPM unpacks to "revolution per minute",
[nq:1] Steve[/nq]
RPM unpacks to "revolutions per minute" according to MW-C and most of the returns from a OneLook dictionary search. Encarta returns "resale price maintenance" but I submit that that is not relevant to the current topic. The only instance where I would argue your definition is when the rate of revolution is one revolution per minute.

[nq:1]I've noticed that in abbreviating "revolutions per minute" many peoplewill write or say "RPMs." Would this not in effect translate back into "revolutions per minutes?" "...resulting in increased RPMs." (sounds right) versus "...resulting in increased RPM." (seems right) Mike[/nq]
I've noticed a related phenomenon with the word passerby turning into passersby instead of passerbys/passerbi

[nq:1]I've noticed that in abbreviating "revolutions per minute" many peoplewill write or say "RPMs." Would this not in effect translate back into "revolutions per minutes?" "...resulting in increased RPMs." (sounds right) versus "...resulting in increased RPM." (seems right)[/nq]
RsPM?
Don
Kansas City

Yes, that seems to follow, except that if that were the case we would be required to say "revolutionses per minute," which is fine if one is a 900 year old hobbit that eats raw game and lusts after a precious evil ring. According to at least six dictionaries the "s" is built into the "R."

Mike

[nq:2]RsPM? Don Kansas City[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes, that seems to follow, except that if that were the case we would be required to say "revolutionses per ... and lusts after a precious evil ring. According to at least six dictionaries the "s" is built into the "R."[/nq]
I assume you knew that I was being facetious.
"Rpm", like "GPM" or "psi", is a sort of non-standard way to express an engine

[nq:1]I've noticed that in abbreviating "revolutions per minute" many people will write or say "RPMs." Would this not in effect translate back into "revolutions per minutes?"[/nq]
You have logic on your side, and we know what that's worth in linguistic matters. :-)
FWIW, I'm not so offended by "RPMs" as you I think of "RPM" as a word like "shrimp", where the plural may be formed with or wi

[nq:1]FWIW, I'm not so offended by "RPMs" as you I think of "RPM" as a word like "shrimp", where the plural may be formed with or without the "s": 1 RPM, 2 RPM or RPMs.[/nq]
That's probably the best approach.

Steve
(( This message was packed by weight, not by volume. Do not induce vomiting. No user-serviceable words inside. Batteries not included. ))

[nq:1]I've noticed that in abbreviating "revolutions per minute" many people will write or say "RPMs." Would this not in effect translate back into "revolutions per minutes?" "...resulting in increased RPMs." (sounds right) versus "...resulting in increased RPM." (seems right)[/nq]
Same with people who write or say "WMDs".

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa