Q. In “People in chef’s coats were being shepherded from room to room,” should it be written as “chef’s coats,” “chefs coats,” or “chefs’ coats”? I’m guessing that it’s the former, since it is a single, standardized coat that all the chefs are wearing, but I’m not sure.
A. You are correct: the plural of “chef’s coat” is “chef’s coats.” There are a bunch of nouns like that one. For example,
batter’s box (sing.), batter’s boxes (pl.)
buyer’s or seller’s market (sing.), buyer’s or seller’s markets (pl.)
lady’s slipper (sing.), lady’s slippers (pl.)
teacher’s pet (sing.), teacher’s pets (pl.)
So, for example, you might refer to a teacher’s pet in one classroom or to several teacher’s pets in one or more classrooms.
But if, instead of model students, you were referring to two or more teachers and their cats or dogs (or other such animals), you’d write “teachers’ pets” (note the placement of the apostrophe).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the plural of “Mercedes”? For example: “The armored Mercedes’ of the oligarchs sped through the streets of Moscow.” “Mercedeses” sounds clunky, but does the final apostrophe adequately convey the plural?
A. An apostrophe can sometimes signal a plural, but it does that only in combination with an s (e.g., three x’s). Mercedes’ doesn’t read as plural.
And though a proper name ending in a pronounced s normally forms the plural by adding es—for example, a family with the surname Jones would be known as the Joneses—we wouldn’t recommend that approach in this case.
A written invitation to lunch at “The Mercedeses” might be strictly correct (for the surname Mercedes), but as you suggest, that would be awkward to pronounce (and just as difficult to read). For the car, allow Mercedes to do double duty as both singular and plural.
One caveat: Unless context makes it clear that Mercedes is being used as a plural, you may have to clarify—for example, by adding a collective noun: The oligarchs’ armored fleet of Mercedes sped through the streets of Moscow.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m dealing with a quote within a quote. In fiction, a character in dialogue says something like, “You’re using a whole lot of ‘we’s’ here.” The “we” is supposed to be plural. How can this be punctuated properly? Or another case of the same situation, but in narrative text: A chorus of “got it”s, “yeah”s and way too enthusiastic “woo”s followed.
A. Often you can form the plural of a word used as a word simply by adding an s. That would work for your last set of examples:
A chorus of “got its,” “yeahs,” and way too enthusiastic “woos” followed.
But it works less well for “we” (mostly because “wes” looks too much like the name Wes). For that plural, either rephrase or use an apostrophe (as you’ve done in your question):
“You’re using ‘we’ a whole lot here.”
or
“You’re using a whole lot of ‘we’s’ here.”
Though apostrophes normally signal possession or contraction, they’re also good at clarifying the occasional plural that might otherwise be hard to read (as with letters: e.g., two w’s). Another option would be to use italics instead of quotation marks. But don’t put the s in italics (see CMOS 7.12)—and keep the apostrophe in we’s:
A chorus of got its, yeahs, and way too enthusiastic woos followed.
“You’re using a whole lot of we’s here.”
Switching to regular text for the s is analogous to putting the “s” after a closing quotation mark—as in “yeah”s. But “yeah”s is typographically awkward. Some styles allow it, so it’s a legitimate choice, but Chicago prefers the alternatives shown above (see also CMOS 7.13).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the following sentence, should the word “point” be singular or plural? “The type should be no larger than 11 point.”
A. It should be “points,” plural, but it would become singular “point” if used as a modifier:
the type is 11 points
but
11-point type
All this changes if you use an abbreviation:
the type is 11 pt.
and
11 pt. type
Not only is “pt.” preferred for both singular and plural, but “11 pt. type” has no hyphen. For the first convention, see CMOS 10.65. For the second, see the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.89, section 1, “number + abbreviation.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the plural of a last name ending in a silent x? I just read an article using “the Robidouxes” and wondered if it should be “the Robidouxs” or “the Robidoux.” Thank you for your response.
A. See CMOS 7.11: “Names ending in an unpronounced s or x are best left in singular form.” Examples include “the seventeen Louis of France” and “The class included three Margaux.” So we would recommend the spelling “Robidoux” for both the singular and the plural. If for any reason you were to depart from Chicago and add an s for the plural, then either an es (as in the article you read) or an s—applied consistently—could work for names ending in x but not s (ss may not read as plural). If the final x or s is pronounced, an es would be required (e.g., “two Felixes”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was asked how to refer to more than one of a specific numbered form. For example, do you say “IRS Form 1040s” or “IRS Forms 1040”?
A. That depends. To refer to more than one copy of a form, add an s to the number—as in “three Form 1040s” or “five Form 1040-NRs.” To refer to two different forms, use plural “Forms”—as in “IRS Forms 1040 and 1040-NR.” The phrase “IRS Forms 1040” by itself would refer to multiple iterations of Form 1040 (e.g., Forms 1040, 1040-NR, and 1040-SR).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How should the symbols N2 and O2 be pluralized in Chicago style? N2’s and O2’s or italicized symbols with no apostrophes?
A. To channel Bartleby (Melville’s fictional nineteenth-century scrivener): we prefer not to write chemical formulas as plurals; nor would we apply italics (as we would for ordinary letters as letters; see CMOS 7.64). We’d advise rewording instead (e.g., “two N2 molecules”). But if you absolutely must express a molecule as a plural, an apostrophe will help make it clear that the s isn’t part of the formula. It may not be precisely Chicago style, but readers will know what you mean—which is the goal of all good editing.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do you pluralize given names such as in brand names? For example, I was editing a book where a person received a gift of a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes. Another character exclaimed, “You could miss my birthday too if it means a pair of Jimmys.” An apostrophe is not quite right since it is not possessive. And using the “ie” form of plural with a “y” would look odd IMO. What’s the best way to handle it?
A. The plural form of a name is normally formed by adding either “s” or “es” (no apostrophe), so we would recommend “Jimmys.” See CMOS 7.9, which includes “Harrys” among its examples.
But considering the subject, you’d be wise also to consider the usage in Lauren Weisberger’s best-selling The Devil Wears Prada (New York: Broadway Books, 2004):
“Jeffy, bring me a pair of Jimmy’s in a size . . .” (p. 104; ellipsis in original)
Some stylebooks recommend an apostrophe for certain plurals—for example, to join an “s” to a number or an abbreviation (as in “1900’s” or “BA’s”). And for brand names, we’re all more or less familiar with possessive stand-alone forms like Ben & Jerry’s. So “Jimmy’s” is a reasonable choice.
But aside from this one instance in Weisberger’s otherwise influential book, we find no convincing evidence for such a preference. Elsewhere in the book, the shoes are referred to as “Jimmy Choos” (no apostrophe; see pp. 6 and 52), and that seems to be the most common usage IRL.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am working with an author who insists on referring to a photo that was taken in a certain decade as “this 1950’s photo.” Is the apostrophe needed, and is it in the correct place?
A. Chicago style is “1950s,” but the apostrophized style as you show it is accepted by some publishers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How would you handle the plural of a term of art like “artist’s proof,” which itself contains a possessive as the first word, when referring to proofs of multiple artists? It seems clear that we would say “artist’s proofs by the engraver Combet” to refer to several proofs by the single engraver Combet. I think we would also say “artist’s proofs by the two engravers Combet and Haley” (referring to several proofs by each engraver), because we are using the plural of the term of art or unit “artist’s proof,” which is shorthand for “a proof of an engraving by an artist.” Stated differently, adding an “s” to proofs is sufficient to make the term of art “artist’s proofs” plural, and we don’t need to use the plural of the first term as well when two different engravers are involved, since we are still just referring to multiple examples of the term of art “artist’s proof.” We should distinguish this case from the use of “artist” as a normal possessive and not as part of a term of art, in which case we would need to use the plural of the possessive (artists’) when referring to proofs by several artists, but I don’t think we would say “artists’ proofs by the two engravers Combet and Haley” when using “artist’s proofs” as a term of art. If we decide that the possessive of “artist” is singular in the case of multiple proofs by a single engraver and plural in the case of multiple engravers, we are still left with the unclear case when the number of engravers is not specified, i.e., when just using the term “artist’s proofs.” An analogous situation might arise with a term like “baker’s dozen” but not with normal possessives like “manufacturers’ coupons.”