Even in the US, I believe the correct usage is that 'rpm' _is_ singular,
since it refers to a single thing, which is the number of revolutions made
in a minute. 'kph', 'mph', 'cps' (now known as Hertz) etc. work the same
way.
In order to have multiple rpms, you have to have multiple things being
measured.
So, "A Land Rover's idling rpm is 800.", "All of the race car's rpms were
over 5000.", and the original example should have been "Dave's done 110 in
Nigel (and had it up to 9500 rpm).".
Try saying the words instead of the abbreviation, and I think you'll see
what I mean. (revolutions per minutes ???)
Randall
On Monday, August 16, 1999 3:44 PM, Peter C. [SMTP:nosimport@mailbag.com]
wrote:
>
> John,
> How, then, does one speak of, say, a Land Rover's rpm, which is very
> nearly singular?
> Peter C
> At 03:28 PM 8/13/1999 , jonmac wrote:
> >
> >>Dave's done 110 in Nigel (And had it up to 9500 rpms.)
> >
> >It's been a long time since I was confused by hood/bonnet, wing/fender,
> >trunk/boot blah blah - but ...
> >why is rpm trans-Atlantic pluralised? Revs or revolutions per minute
means
> >rpm, so why does another 's' go on the end of rpm? This issue is causing
me
> >a considerable loss of sleep.
> >
> >John Mac
>
> Peter C.
> MGC-GT , 100-4, '31 MM8 Cammy, Innocenti S(spoken for) ((now gone)),
> '52 Champ, '60 L-R 109 SW, 3 '64-73 L-R 88's
> nosimport@mailbag.com
>
|