# a qué se debe tantas "s"?



## LizzyArg

Hola chicos, les hago una consulta
Alguien escribió una palabra con muchas ssss al final, y quiero decirle: ¿Por qué tantas "S"?. Esta bien esta traducción: why is that so many s?
-Se trata de un mensaje informal-
Gracias!


----------



## Lord Rubén

What are all those ssss about?
What does it mean?

Es un intento, pruba a ver qué dicen los nativos.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Yo pondría simplemente Why so many...? Y mi duda es qué debes poner a continuación, aunque la lógica me haría esperar algo sí como _"s"s_ (el plural de _"s"_).


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

My two cents:

Why so many "s" letters?
Why did you use so many "s" letter?

Had never thought about the plural of the letters in English.

For instance, in Spanish you can say eles, emes, enes, íes, aes, zetas and so on.

Can anybody say how to say this in English?


----------



## fenixpollo

De acuerdo con Rubén y Nuts:
Why so many s's?
What do all of those s's mean?
What's with all the s's? (coloquial)
What are all of those s's about? (coloquial)
What's up with all the s's? (más coloquial)


ClimbEveryMountain said:


> Had never thought about the plural of the letters in English.
> 
> Can anybody say how to say this in English?


No. I'm not sure how to write that. I wanted to put "s" in quotes ("s"'s), but then the apostrophe gets lost in the quotation marks and just looks silly.


----------



## sandpiperlily

We don't generally spell out the names of letters at all, though some do try. 

For a very informal letter, I might say: "What's with all the S's?"


----------



## LizzyArg

Cualquiera de las tres últimas puede adaptarse a la situación.
Muchas Gracias sandpiperlily, fenixpollo y ClimbEveryMountain por la gran ayuda !!


----------



## Oldy Nuts

sandpiperlily said:


> We don't generally spell out the names of letters at all, though some do try.
> 
> For a very informal letter, I might say: "What's with all the S's?"



And how do you _pronounce/read_ s's/S's? And is it correct to use an apostrophe to indicate a plural? I suggested _"s"s_ precisely because I have this doubt. Would you also ask "why so many ?'s"?


----------



## Oldy Nuts

LizzyArg said:


> Cualquiera de las tres últimas puede adaptarse a la situación.
> Muchas Gracias sandpiperlily, fenixpollo y ClimbEveryMountain por la gran ayuda !!



You are welcome...


----------



## sandpiperlily

Oldy Nuts said:


> And how do you _pronounce/read_ s's/S's? And is it correct to use an apostrophe to indicate a plural? I suggested _"s"s_ precisely because I have this doubt. Would you also ask "why so many ?'s"?



If I were to say it out loud, I would pronounce it ESS-ez.

Apostrophe does not usually indicate plural, but is sometimes used informally in situations like these -- when you're pluralizing a single letter.  I'm not sure if it is technically "correct" or not, but it is very common and easily understood, especially in an informal email.


----------



## Dama_J

Oldy Nuts - I agree with you. Why so many Ss? or Why so many "s"s?. Most people would probably put an apostrophe but it is not correct for a plural.


Edit: Sorry, I missed your post sanddpiperlily.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

sandpiperlily said:


> If I were to say it out loud, I would pronounce it ESS-ez.
> 
> Apostrophe does not usually indicate plural, but is sometimes used informally in situations like these -- when you're pluralizing a single letter.  I'm not sure if it is technically "correct" or not, but it is very common and easily understood, especially in an informal email.



I know this is so common that almost anyone would understand, but my doubt is more vital. How _should_ one write the plural of single letters and single symbols such as ?, $, @, %, &, ...

My fair lady J, you posted your message while I was writing mine. Thanks.


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

Good question! I totally support it, but shouldn't it be in another post?


----------



## david314

My way: _*Why all* (of) the S's? _


----------



## Oldy Nuts

ClimbEveryMountain said:


> Good question! I totally support it, but shouldn't it be in another post?



In my opinion, my question is part of the original question. And it has been answered by Dama_J, so I don't see the need to open a new thread. Unless you disagree with her...


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

Seems to me that your question, however a good one, was not answering the original, but generating a new question and because I think it's pretty interesting that's why I suggested it to be in a new post. In that way other people having the same question can find the answer to what you asked.

Never mind, it was just a suggestion.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

ClimbEveryMountain said:


> Seems to me that your question, however a good one, was not answering the original, but generating a new question and because I think it's pretty interesting that's why I suggested it to be in a new post. In that way other people having the same question can find the answer to what you asked.
> 
> Never mind, it was just a suggestion.



In my opinion, what you call my question is an inseparable part of the original question. Being just a part of it, it obviously cannot answer the question as a whole, but it is necessary to answer it completely.

And of course there is no need to quarrel about our apparently divergent opinions on what may be a debatable point. I am quite willing for the matter to be taken to a separate post if any mod suggests so. If it hasn't already been discussed... (I don't know and don't feel like trying to find out right now).


----------



## Idiomático

Isn't the plural of ess (that is the correct name of the letter "S") esses?


----------



## gengo

Dama_J said:


> Why so many Ss? or Why so many "s"s?. Most people would probably put an apostrophe but it is not correct for a plural.



That is incorrect.

From the AMA Style Guide:
Use _'s_ to indicate the plural of letters, signs, or symbols spoken as such, or words referred to as words when _s _alone would be confusing.

Ex.
He uses too many and's.
Mind your p's and q's.
There are nine +'s on the page.
His l's looked like 7's.

This is a very standard rule.



Idiomático said:


> Isn't the plural of ess (that is the correct name of the letter "S") esses?



Yes, that is correct.  Every letter in the alphabet has an official "name" spelled out, but very few people use these, or even know them.

Personally, when I refer to letters, I always use the capital form, which I think helps distinguish the letter from surrounding text.

_Why so many S's?_


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Just a small addition to gengo's excellent explanation: according to dictionary.com, the (non spelled out) letter "S" accepts these plurals: S's. Ss, s's, ss.


----------



## Dama_J

Thanks gengo - I stand corrected! I hate seeing 's for plural in other cases - I always see it as possessive... I just assumed the rule applied to letters/symbols too. 

We're always learning on here!
J


----------



## fenixpollo

Oldy Nuts said:


> How _should_ one write the plural of single letters and single symbols such as ?, $, @, %, &,


As gengo points out, there is not one correct way to do it -- it's a style issue, and different style guides have different directives and preferences.





Idiomático said:


> Isn't the plural of ess (that is the correct name of the letter "S") esses?


 No, because the name of the letter is not "ess", but "s".


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Now a small addition to fenixpollo's message. According to dictionary.com, the name of the letter S is pronounced .


----------



## gengo

fenixpollo said:


> No, because the name of the letter is not "ess", but "s".



Look it up in any dictionary.

ess
The letter _S_.


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

There's only one 100% for sure rule in English nd that is... there's not 100% for sure rule.

Dont you guys have an organization or a language association to which we can go to and have a 100% for sure answer?


----------



## gengo

ClimbEveryMountain said:


> There's only one 100% for sure rule in English nd that is... there's not 100% for sure rule.
> 
> Dont you guys have an organization or a language association to which we can go to and have a 100% for sure answer?



Nope.  Such organizations are usually formed in an attempt to preserve the purity of a language, and English speakers feel no need for that.  Our language is already so bastardized that it has no purity.  So anything goes.  Almost.

More seriously, there are rules in English grammar that have no exceptions, but they are indeed the exception.


----------



## sandpiperlily

ClimbEveryMountain said:


> There's only one 100% for sure rule in English nd that is... there's not 100% for sure rule.
> 
> Dont you guys have an organization or a language association to which we can go to and have a 100% for sure answer?



No.  Unlike Spanish and French, the English language does not have a single centralized arbiter.  The language evolves organically, with institutions such as dictionaries, style manuals, schools, and the media all playing a role in the way that vocabulary and grammatical structures evolve over time.  This makes the language more "democratic" in the sense that words are imported shamelessly from other languages, or even made up and rapidly adopted.  Other words and grammatical structures fall into disuse, while previously unheard of or grossly incorrect usages become common and are eventually perceived as correct.

Of course, the disadvantage, as you point out, is that there is often no "100% sure" solution to a given question.  The advantage is that we don't need to ask anybody for permission to adapt our language to changing times!  Nor do we, as Americans, have to look to institutions controlled by historic colonial powers (no offense British friends -- but it's weird to me that Latin Americans are STILL bowing to a peninsular Spanish authority on their language!).


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

Well, my comment comes from my genuine curiosity and desire of knowing what the right thing is. I am an English teacher (or at least I try ) and I'd like to have a correct and definte answer to give when asked about it.

If we continue like that we can make people confused or unclear about this or any other topic 

Regarding, Sand's comment, I personally believe it's always better to have a higher position institution to go to when in doubt about how to resolve something.


----------



## sandpiperlily

ClimbEveryMountain said:


> Well, my comment comes from my genuine curiosity and desire of knowing what the right thing is. I am an English teacher (or at least I try ) and I'd like to have a correct and definte answer to give when asked about it.
> 
> If we continue like that we can make people confused or unclear about this or any other topic



That's why it's so hard to be an English teacher!  I wish you all luck and success at your daunting task.  As gengo says, our language is a mess.  I once tried to explain to a room full of Mexican students why "t*ough*," "thr*ough*," and "tr*ough*" all have the *ough* pattern but have three distinct vowel sounds!  Who the hell knows?


----------



## Oldy Nuts

sandpiperlily said:


> That's why it's so hard to be an English teacher!  I wish you all luck and success at your daunting task.  As gengo says, our language is a mess.  I once tried to explain to a room full of Mexican students why "t*ough*," "thr*ough*," and "tr*ough*" all have the *ough* pattern but have three distinct vowel sounds!  Who the hell knows?



Well, I was taught many decades ago that the "correct" pronuntiaton of _tough_ is given by rule 25,327,239 (which states only how one should pronounce this single word); that of _through_, by rule 18,333,875, ...


----------



## Oldy Nuts

sandpiperlily said:


> ...
> Nor do we, as Americans, have to look to institutions controlled by historic colonial powers (no offense British friends -- but it's weird to me that Latin Americans are STILL bowing to a peninsular Spanish authority on their language!).



Well, to be fair, in real life the Real Academia Española means the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española,

http://asale.org/ASALE/asale.html

And, judging by the number of chilenisms in the Dictionary, the Chilean one is one of the most active.

But we have gone off topic and may be censored any time now....


----------



## sandpiperlily

Oldy Nuts said:


> Well, to be fair, in real life the Real Academia Española means the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española,
> 
> http://asale.org/ASALE/asale.html
> 
> And, judging by the number of chilenisms in the Dictionary, the Chilean one is one of the most active.
> 
> But we have gone off topic and may be censored any time now....



I'm mostly teasing... I know that there is substantial Latin American influence on RAE.

...but it's still called "_real_," isn't it?


----------



## Oldy Nuts

ClimbEveryMountain said:


> Let her be, Oldy... as she said..."I once tried to explain to a room full of Mexican students why "t*ough*," "thr*ough*," and "tr*ough*" all have the *ough* pattern but have three distinct vowel sounds!"
> 
> *



I gave the explanation for the different pronunciations in message #30 above...


----------



## fenixpollo

gengo said:


> Look it up in any dictionary.
> 
> ess
> The letter _S_.


 I did look it up in a dictionary -- ours -- and there's no mention (that I saw) of "ess".

http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=s

I didn't see any mention of "ess" on Webster's online, either.

It was long ago that I learned the names of the letters in English, but I'm positive that they had names like "p, q, r, s and t", and not "pee" "qiu" "arr" "ess" and "tee".


----------



## Oldy Nuts

fenixpollo said:


> I did look it up in a dictionary -- ours -- and there's no mention (that I saw) of "ess".
> 
> http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=s
> ...



But you can listen to it here:

http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=s&dict=enes&B10=Go


----------



## fenixpollo

I thought we were talking about how to write the plural of "s", not how to pronounce it. 

My point was that I have never seen it written "ess".  I agree, however, that "ess" is a somewhat phonetic representation of how it is pronounced.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Bueno, parece que destapé una verdadera olla de grillos. No era mi intención, así que me disculpo. Ahora, que el resultado fue muy positivo y muy enriquecedor, lo fue. Así que creo que las numerosas salidas de tema que hubo se justifican.

Y sigo creyendo que mi pregunta es una parte integrante y necesaria de la pregunta original.


----------



## flljob

Tu pregunta debería haber sido _¿A qué se debe*n* tantas eses?_


----------



## Idiomático

fenixpollo said:


> I did look it up in a dictionary -- ours -- and there's no mention (that I saw) of "ess".
> 
> http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=s
> 
> I didn't see any mention of "ess" on Webster's online, either.
> 
> It was long ago that I learned the names of the letters in English, but I'm positive that they had names like "p, q, r, s and t", and not "pee" "qiu" "arr" "ess" and "tee".


 

You need to dig a little deeper.  Look it up in the American Heritage Dictionary (US) or the Oxfort English Dictionary (UK).  Both define ess as the name of the letter s.  By the way, pee is indeed the name of the letter p.  And I just looked up ess in Meriam Webster online (meriam-webster.com) and found "name of the letter s."


----------



## Oldy Nuts

flljob said:


> Tu pregunta debería haber sido _¿A qué se debe*n* tantas eses?_



Sin duda tu comentario está dirigido a la pregunta original. La pregunta mía, por la que me estaba disculpando, es ésta:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=10234105&postcount=8

que está explicada más claramente aquí:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=10234166&postcount=12


----------



## gengo

fenixpollo said:


> I did look it up in a dictionary -- ours -- and there's no mention (that I saw) of "ess".
> 
> It was long ago that I learned the names of the letters in English, but  I'm positive that they had names like "p, q, r, s and t", and not "pee"  "qiu" "arr" "ess" and "tee".



Son, I say son, what you need is a good papuh dictionary.  [Rooster Cogburn voice]  

Webster's:
tee
The letter T.

pee
The letter P.

ex
The letter X.

etc.

However, I was unable to find the name for R or Q, so I may have been wrong when I said that ALL the letters have official names.  But knowing them is good if you ever play Scrabble.


----------

