Date:         Sat, 26 May 2001 11:30:20 -0500
Reply-To:     Chris Stann <ChrisS@INFORMS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Chris Stann <ChrisS@INFORMS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Apostrophes & spelling - RPMs? not
Comments: To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

With respect to your engine RPM, RPM is always correct.  Unless you wish to
hook up a Tachometer to you wall clock, then we COULD have a problem.

About as handy as locating gas leaks with a lit cigarette lighter.

Chris.

----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@worldnet.att.net>
To: Chris Stann <ChrisS@INFORMS.COM>; <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Apostrophes & spelling - RPMs? not


> Huh?
>
> What about the second hand on my clock????
>
> It seems to travel at 1 rpm, and that would be singular.
>
> In order to be technically correct, that should be:
>
> 1 RPM = correct
> 750 RPM = acceptable, though incorrect
> 750 RsPM = unacceptable, though correct
>
> Karl Wolz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Stann" <ChrisS@INFORMS.COM>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Apostrophes & spelling - RPMs? not
>
>
> > And while we're on the subject.
> >
> > RPM already plural, so there is no such thing as RPMs.  Let me explain:
> >
> > RPM - Revolutions per minute.  See, "revolutions" is already a plural
> noun,
> > so there is no need  to say "750 RPMs," but you may say "750 RPM."
> Because
> > you would never say "750 revolutions per minutes," but you do say "750
> > revolutions per minute."
> >
> > In short:
> >
> > 750 RPM - correct
> > 750 RPMs - incorrect
> > 750 RPM's - also incorrect
> > 750 RPM - correct
> >
> > Thank you, that's all for now.  Next week we discuss RPM's close cousin,
> > PMS.  Class dismissed.
> >
> > Chris.
>
>
>