Thanks, Cliff. I shared your comments with my fellow list admins. One of them responded that he uses the same convention that I use to clarify surname plurals: "I do appreciate the apostrophe issue though, and although not a grammar freak, I do like to avoid ambiguity where possible. That's where an often used genealogy (how many folk spell that incorrectly?) convention has a big advantage - the use of capital letters for family names. One of my names is CUMMING, and there is the similar, but nowadays distinct family of CUMMINGS. I can simply use CUMMINGs to denote the plural and be fairly confident to not be misinterpreted." Regards, Mary Richardson At 02:24 AM 1/2/2010, you wrote: >The email about the plurals of surnames was well received, so I thought >I would mention another place where the apostrophe is misused by >genealogists. > >The plural of a decade or century should not contain an apostrophe. For >example, 1740's and 1900's are incorrect. They should be 1740s and 1900s. > >http://www.ohio.edu/publications/editor.html > >See 5.1. > >As another website said, "Apostrophes indicate possession or >contractions, not plurality." > >An example of a contraction would be, "She graduated in '65." That is a >proper use of the apostrophe with dates. > >While we are on the topic of plurals, if you are looking at a book of >baptism records that lists the date of birth for each person, how would >you express the plural of 'date of birth?' Would 'dates of birth' or >'date of births' be correct? The answer is the first one, 'dates of >birth.' > >Finally, one more thing about surname plurals. Some surnames exist with >an 's' at the end of them, whereas the 's' is lacking in a spelling >variation of the same surname. Michael and Michaels are such an >example. To place an 's' at the end of the Michael surname to make a >plural could mislead the reader. In such a case, I always reword the >sentence to avoid using the plural of the name. Instead of saying, >"There are 25 Michaels buried in that cemetery," I would say, "There are >25 people by the surname of Michael buried in that cemetery." Or, >"There are 25 people by the surname of Michaels buried in that >cemetery." The reader should not get confused about the meanings of >those sentences. > >Cliff Lamere