Do’s and Don’t's

I like the capitalization out provided by PabloCity. But I have a related dilemma with an apostrophe, this time not a plural, but two possessives:

"Kinko's poor service was notorious in the industry."

The name of the business is "Kinko's" and at some point it is going to need a possessive of the possessive. I might rephrase the above sentence for something formal, but to represent speech? I definitely do not pronounce an additional [z] in this instance, but am I besmirching the good (or bad) name of Kinko's by ignoring its actual name and not writing Kinko's's, which looks atrocious. (The same could work for McDonald's.)

Guys, although I appreciate everyones persistence in squashing the incorrect use of apostrophes in plurals, we should remember the actual meaning of the word "apostrophe". It is *only* there to replace missing letters.

Its use to show possession is simply a result of using a single "s" for possession instead of older constructs.

Any other use, or declared "rule", is simply based on common usage. Of course, if we allow common usage to be the justification for any new rules, we might as well just put an apostrophe onto the "s" key of all keyboards, and call it a day...

And yes, I *did* miss out that apostrophe on purpose (above)!

So, we can pick our own poison for pluralizing "Don't" (I may just start using Don'tses.)

What about "Do's"? It's not a missing letter, it doesn't end in an S. It ends up being a pronunciation guide.

Chris B.: I like DOs and DON'Ts, but if I'm writing a headline in all caps, then "DOS AND DON'TS FOR WALKING IN NEW YORK CITY," it looks like I'm talking about an operating system.

We live in a world of change and what was correct yesterday may not be correct today. I don't really think it matters how you spell do's and don'ts as long as the message is received correctly by the reader. It's like reading the IRS Code. There is usually an exception to the rule somewhere. Maybe it used to be "dos" until we had to deal with DOS. If you use do's just to help the reader understand that there is a list of what to do, then it's correct. "Does eat oats and mares eat oats and little lambs eat ivy." So the plural of doe is does and the plural of do is dos. Or is it do's?

You do not use an apostrophe for plural - it is for possessive or contractions only. The "Do" does not own anything and it not a contraction. Therefore, it is so simple:

Dos and Don'ts.

That's it.

Just to make it clear: if you write "Do's" that would mean "Do is". Since we are talking about more than one (plural) things to "Do", that would be spelled "Dos". I don't say that I have five "thing's" to do today. Why is this so hard? :)

Generally the plural of word ending with an "o" is es. The use of a apostrophe is for possession or contraction. It therefore could be construed as do's uses the apostrophe appropriately to replace the missing "e". Don'ts is self explanatory.

Why not extend the phrase to "What to do and what not to do", or "To do and not to do", or "You should do this, You shouldn't do it".

Capitalizing both words is incorrect grammar. It doesn't matter if it looks more pleasing to the eye, it's still incorrect. Even for titles and headings, only the first letter of each word should be capitalized.

This is one of those special case scenarios that exact definitions fail to cover, ergo such confusion. Let's resolve this in a simple way that doesn't involve textbook definitions that somehow still leave us unsure:

For English, "dos" is not a word, so the apostrophe is needed.

Don't = do not. "Do nots" is incorrect - nots is not a word, so the apostrophe is also needed.

Just because people have always been oblivious to use "don't's" doesn't mean it's not proper use of grammar.

Do's and Don't's = correct
'80's = correct

Oh, and "dos" as plural can be contradicted with what Chris B pointed out: "there are two Is and two Us in the word ridiculous". You see, it can be argued for both sides. "Dos" as plural needs to be re-written in the dictionary because it lists "do's" as a noun. Someone got confused at some point.

I think that don'ts doesn't make much sense, because whenever pluralizing a word that shouldn't be (like a verb), there should be an apostrophe before the s, thus indicating the pluralized verb. But, I have never seen any grammatically word with two apostrophes. Plus, you need the apostrophe for don't, so dont's wouldn't be an option. I say they are both correct.
1. It is completely possible that a word could have two apostrophes
2. Don'ts would be the default "right" way of writing it if don't's can't have two apostrophes
3. BUT, when you type it on an auto-correcting text box, program, etc., Neither of them have the little squiggly red line on the bottom, which tells you if a word is spelled wrong, or doesn't exist. Try it out!

Enticix: I've seen two apostrophes in a word on a few occasions, e.g. "shouldn't've" or "fish 'n' chips". As you say there's no reason why you can't have two apostrophes in a word. But I still don't like don't's.

The aversion to "dos" is simply because it looks like (and is) another word: Spanish for two, French for back, or one of those black pop-up screens with code in it. "Ifs and buts" causes no such problems (well actually "buts" is a French word but hey...)

As for decades, I prefer to dodge the apostrophe issue by writing (say) nineties.

In "Eats, Shoots & Leaves", the grammar book by Lynne Truss, she states that apostrophes are used to indicate the plurals of letters and the plurals of words:

How many f's are there in Fulham?
do's and don't's
but's and and's

I've done some googling and noticed that Telegraph newspaper journalists have used the expression do's and don't's and also dos and don'ts.

Personally I go with Lynne Truss - as dos is confusing for the reader.

Perhaps it's time to blow my own trumpet - http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2011/01/dos-and-donts-of-apostrophe-use.html

Wow, very nice blog WW. But dont's? C'mon! (Unless it's deliberate, like "apostrophe's").

@Chris B - Thank for the compliment. Well, you're the first person to notice the dont's, which I'm afraid is a mistake (I'd like to say misprint!) , and one which I seem to have repeated several times.I meant, of course, "Do's and don'ts". So thanks for pointing that out; I've now amended it and given credit where credit's due.

Personally I find 'dos' looks a bit strange without an apostrophe, and prefer to distinguish the first from, as well as your examples - DOS (Microsoft). But once you've done that, I don't find an extra apostrophe is necessary in don'ts. Probably totally illogical, but that's how I like writing it.

This is one of those areas where I think you have a choice, unless you are following a particular house style. I don't personally use apostrophes with capitals and decades, but have no problem with those who do.

What really annoys me, though, is those 'think-they-know-it-all' people who mock others for their 'apostrophe abuse', while themselves apparently being pretty ignorant of the (relatively short) history of the apostrophe. For example, at one time, the so-called greengrocer's apostrophe was quite respectable - this is from Alexander Pope's Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot, quoted without comment in Dr Johnson's Dictionary - 'Comma's and points they set exactly right' - http://books.google.pl/books?id=IYQUAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=pope+epistle+to+dr+arbuthnot&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vV0DUrHbJIrEPciUgNAN&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=comma%27s&f=false

See my comment of February 5 above. From the professional copy editor's POV, there is essentially no debate: dos and don'ts, period, for US style today. Chicago 7.13–15. . . .

@copy editor - there's a whole English-speaking world outside that of professional copy editors, or of those writing academic copy for journals that follow CMOS rules. Outside the US, even. A published world, what's more: according to Google's figures, there are rather more books listed at Google Books with 'do's and don'ts' than 'dos and don'ts', including several in the 'for Dummies' series, and one intriguingly called the 'do's and don'ts of underwear'.

Those who are bound by CMOS, AP or individual house style guides obviously have to go with the flow, but the rest of us have a choice.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22do%27s+and+don%27ts%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1

we,,need..to...follow..the...rule's..of....english...grammar...

By the way, Chris B., CDS really means something: Credit Default Swap, one of those fine derivatives that Lehman Bros specialised in and that, despite the havock they caused, are still very popular with finance speculators :-)

I am editing a book where I finally understand the phrase at the end of a contribution "...these topics could keep you busy after work, on weekends, and in between the infamous Honey Dos!"
I'm sorry, but I just didn't understand it until, now...on a third read. The author provided the manuscript with upper case Honey Dos, and guess I thought it was some sort of Mexican dessert, "dos" being Spanish for "two." Yummy! Clearly, Honey Dos should be lower case. Should it be honey-dos? honey-dooz?

Do's: there's a contraction - the 'e' is missing

Think about it:

VERB: watch - 3rd person singular "he watches"
NOUN: a watch - plural "watches"

The plural of a noun generally follows the same spelling rules as the third person singular of the verb in the present simple.

But with "do" that creates a pronunciation problem, so you need the apostrophe as the plural of the noun is a contraction.

Not to mention that fact that it helps avoid potentially embarrassing misunderstandings... I mean, the "infamous Honey Dos!" - is that a Bond girl or a porn star, because it looks like a name to me!!!

@Darren Lee - I use an apostrophe in do's myself, but that's a pretty whacky piece of deduction of yours. In all the stuff I've read about do's and don'ts, I wonder why nobody has come up with that one before.

The fact that plurals and 3rd person singular both end in s is pure coincidence; 3rd person singular used to end in th in some dialects - he hath, while plural s came from the Saxon genitive case ending - es.

What's more, there must be relatively few verb noun and verb combinations where they take the same form. OK, it works with watch / watches, cry / cries etc. But these are standard nouns. The whole point is that do and don't in this sense are not normally nouns. Just as p and q are not normally nouns, but we can have p's and q's. They are nominal representations of something else, verbs and letters.

In British English, however, there is another way to use do as a noun - for a party or social event - "Are you having a big do for your birthday?" And the plural is - dos:

"I just thought it must be someone from the Manor. They're always having dos and
things up there." - Lost Kitty, by Natasha Duncan Drake.

Nice try though. But you're rather closer to the mark with your last point.

@Darren Lee - on second thoughts, perhaps not so whacky, as the two probably are usually the same (but I've never heard any rule about this), but it doesn't work when it comes to do and have: we talk about the "the haves and the have nots", not "the has and the has nots".

Wow, you guys really got into this. Thanks for all the conflicting views, it's clear as mud now!

The correct form is "dos and don'ts." My biggest pet peeve is when people say, "do's and don'ts." They add an apostrophe to the first word, but not to the second word. So they are basically using two different rules at the same time. If you happen to think words like that need an apostrophe, at least put the apostrophe s in each word and not just one word. Off the top of my head, the only pluralized word that needs an apostrophe is when you are talking about your grades on a report card as straight A's. This is only to differentiate it from the word "As."

@Carl45 - Sorry to be the cause of your biggest pet peeve, but in this case those of us not bound by a style guide have a choice. As for using one rule in one word and not the other, it's partly to do with aesthetics - don't's just looks damn odd (what other word has two apostrophes?), and partly to do with the fact that don'ts doesn't look like any other word, whereas dos does (dos = parties, DOS etc). And thirdly it's more idiomatic.

So some of us will just keep going our idiosyncratic way, not believing in any one 'correct form'. In any case some dictionaries allow this -

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary has this: "dos and don'ts (also do's and don'ts)",
Merriam-Webster: "do, noun, plural dos or do's"

However I've just had a surprise - the apostrophe version is marginally more popular in AmE books, while the apostrophe-less version is significantly more popular in British books. And at the British National Corpus, there are eighteen examples of "dos and don'ts" but none of "do's and don'ts".

American books - http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dos+and+don%27ts%2Cdo%27s+and+don%27ts%2Cdo%27s+and+don%27t%27s&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdos%20and%20don%27ts%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdo%20%27s%20and%20don%27ts%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdo%20%27s%20and%20don%27t%20%27s%3B%2Cc0

British books - http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dos+and+don%27ts%2Cdo%27s+and+don%27ts%2Cdo%27s+and+don%27t%27s&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdos%20and%20don%27ts%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdo%20%27s%20and%20don%27ts%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdo%20%27s%20and%20don%27t%20%27s%3B%2Cc0

Judging by the examples at Google Books, this expression started to be used in the 1890s.The number of verifiable results for that decade are:

do's and don'ts - 18
do's and don't's - 7
dos and don'ts - 5

I vote for Don'ts, because the contraction can also be interpreted as "Donuts," and I like Donuts.