Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's

[Steve]

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in on whether "typo's" is or is not a 
> valid contraction of 'typographical errors'? ...Carol?
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Sorry, Steve. "Typo's" is not a contraction for "typographical
> errors." It's the possessive form of "typo."
>
 
> Now me (Lee):
> 
> Or a contraction of "typo is". But Carol's right here. The
> apostrophe is used to mark either omission or possession, but
> not plural. The correct plural for "typo" is "typos".
> 

bboyminn:

But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
"s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 

Consider, for example "int'l" for 'international'. The "'l"
logically doesn't make it plural, it simply says that between
the "t" and the "l" several letters have been left out. In
other words, it is a contraction. 

In my case, my use of "'s" says that several letters have been
left out between the 'o' and the 's'. I'm not pluralizing the
phrase because the phrase is already plural.

So, where do we stand now?

Also note that I searched Google for "typo's" and found
325,000 instances, which admittedly pales by comparison to
a search for 'typos', but it says I'm not only one. Also
note that one of those instances was National Public Radio. 

Certainly, as my search shows, "typo's" is not common, but
again the question at hand is not whether "'s" pluralizes
anything, but whether "typo's" is a valid contraction for 
a plural phrase that already ends in "s"?

In the other thread, someone said they can't imagine why I
chose this hill to die on. I claimed I was only wounded but
expected to make a full recovery. Time will tell.

Steve/bboyminn