Run Batted In’s?
Question from a reader of my Tribune column:
> Dear Mr. Bierma,
> I listen to too much sports radio, and inevitably many of the
> misinformed reporters refer to multiple runs batted-in as rbi. It’s
> “chalk on the blackboard” to my ears, and the only thing that keeps me
> from contacting the offenders is that I do not know the term for
> abbreviating the words runs batted-in to rbi. (I believe I am correct
> that the abbreviation takes on a singular form so the correct plural
> of rbi is rbi’s. Also, what is the correct punctuation for the plural
> of rbi?)
I referred him to William Safire’s 11/7/04 column:
‘‘I see many references to WMDs,’’ writes Marc Eisen. ‘‘Doesn’t WMD stand for ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ already plural? Maybe we need to use WsMD.’‘
No. We don’t write Ps.O.W. as initialese for ‘‘prisoners of war’’ or, in baseball, Rs.B.I. for ‘‘runs batted in.’’ The initials focus on the subject and ignore the number. Although the Times stylebook says ‘‘never r.b.i.‘s,’’ the A.P. says ‘‘one R.B.I., 10 R.B.I.s,’’ and I think that easy-to-understand formula holds for the horrific: one WMD, two WMDs.
Not everyone agrees. In the campaign, Vice President Cheney’s text warned of ‘‘terrorists equipped with WMD,’’ meaning ‘‘weapons,’’ while Senator Kerry’s statements were written to refer to the plural as ‘‘WMD’s,’’ including an apostrophe that does not indicate possession. The Times likes the apostrophe and insists on periods after each letter.
My personal preference: a WMD (standing for a single weapon, or for the subject of ‘‘weapons of mass destruction’‘); and WMDs (for two or more of the weapons). Forget about WsMD because you can’t say it.
Next entry: Which Magnesia?
Previous entry: On Language 5/31: Debut of Journal of Politeness Research