St Johns Wood or St John's Wood?

[JMUpton2000]

Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street on the
Jubilee Line the other day.

The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

So which is right?

Regards
John M Upton

[Mark Brader]

Post by JMUpton2000
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

"San John's Wood"? Interesting variation. :-)

Post by JMUpton2000
So which is right?

Either, both, or neither, as you wish. There is no single definitive
source for the "true" name of an Underground station, and many stations
have had this sort of variation.

Of course, if the station was named after something, and *that* has an
official or universally used spelling, you might take that to be indicative...

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by JMUpton2000
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

"San John's Wood"? Interesting variation. :-)

Post by JMUpton2000
So which is right?

Either, both, or neither, as you wish. There is no single definitive
source for the "true" name of an Underground station, and many stations
have had this sort of variation.
Of course, if the station was named after something, and *that* has an
official or universally used spelling, you might take that to be indicative...
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Just because it's correct doesn't

Although, the anomalies on the Underground are curious!

Have a look at the following, PLACE / Station name anomalies:

EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood

In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

And, also:

BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

Marc.

[John B]

Post by M***@aol.com
Although, the anomalies on the Underground are curious!
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood
In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

Just out of interest, where did you get the capitalised place names
from? Merton Council spells Colliers Wood without an apostrophe. And
Westminster Council spells St John's Wood both ways (as does LUL).

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

[Richard M Willis]

Post by John B
"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

I hope there won't be a LUL station called Ghosts Forge

Richard [in SG19]

[John Rowland]

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

You can write "persons unknown" or "malice aforethought", so why not
"parsons green"?

[thoss]

Post by John Rowland

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

You can write "persons unknown" or "malice aforethought", so why not
"parsons green"?

Have you ever seen a green parson?

[Richard M Willis]

Post by thoss
Have you ever seen a green parson?

Yes. The parson at the place where I used to live dutifully grew
his own veggies, composted the waste therefrom, never used styrofoam
cups, and had no car.

Richard [in SG19]

[Dave Arquati]

Post by Richard M Willis

Post by thoss
Have you ever seen a green parson?

Yes. The parson at the place where I used to live dutifully grew
his own veggies, composted the waste therefrom, never used styrofoam
cups, and had no car.

Did you live between Fulham Broadway and Putney Bridge, perchance...?

[M***@aol.com]

Post by John Rowland

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

You can write "persons unknown" or "malice aforethought", so why not
"parsons green"?

Because the green is that of the parson, i.e. it belongs (or
historically did) belong to the parson whose church is on its Western
side, hence a possessive noun, requiring an apostrophe.

"Persons unknown" is not a possessive noun, i.e. the "unknown" is not
the property of the "persons", The word "unknown" in this context is an
adjective, simply describing the type of persons, i.e. "unknown
persons".

I'm not sure what maliceaforethought (apart from being a rather ugly
combination and probably gramatically wrong, but accepted through
common usage) has to do with it!

Marc.

[Larry Lard]

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by John Rowland

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

You can write "persons unknown" or "malice aforethought", so why not
"parsons green"?

Because the green is that of the parson, i.e. it belongs (or
historically did) belong to the parson whose church is on its Western
side, hence a possessive noun, requiring an apostrophe.

Methinks Mr Rowland might be aware of that.

Post by M***@aol.com
"Persons unknown" is not a possessive noun, i.e. the "unknown" is not
the property of the "persons", The word "unknown" in this context is an
adjective, simply describing the type of persons, i.e. "unknown
persons".

Indeed it is less than a month since AWAD (www.wordsmith.org) had
'postpositive adjectives' as its weekly theme, giving us: manque,
redux, redivivus, emeritus, and regnant.

Post by M***@aol.com
I'm not sure what maliceaforethought (apart from being a rather ugly
combination and probably gramatically wrong, but accepted through
common usage) has to do with it!

It's two words - malice aforethought - another postpositive adjectival
use.

Poetically one can put any adjective one pleases postpositively, eg "It
came upon a midnight clear"

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Larry Lard

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by John Rowland

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

You can write "persons unknown" or "malice aforethought", so why not
"parsons green"?

Because the green is that of the parson, i.e. it belongs (or
historically did) belong to the parson whose church is on its Western
side, hence a possessive noun, requiring an apostrophe.

Methinks Mr Rowland might be aware of that.

Post by M***@aol.com
"Persons unknown" is not a possessive noun, i.e. the "unknown" is not
the property of the "persons", The word "unknown" in this context is an
adjective, simply describing the type of persons, i.e. "unknown
persons".

Indeed it is less than a month since AWAD (www.wordsmith.org) had
'postpositive adjectives' as its weekly theme, giving us: manque,
redux, redivivus, emeritus, and regnant.

Post by M***@aol.com
I'm not sure what maliceaforethought (apart from being a rather ugly
combination and probably gramatically wrong, but accepted through
common usage) has to do with it!

It's two words - malice aforethought - another postpositive adjectival
use.
Poetically one can put any adjective one pleases postpositively, eg "It
came upon a midnight clear"
--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please

Sorry, Larry it was a mistake on my part to make malice aforethought
into one word! As a lawyer, I put forward the excuse that I have only
ever seen the word aforthought preceded by the word malice, and had
subconsciously conjoined them into one word!

Here's another thread, then, for the literary-minded members of this
forum: what other words have you ever seen preceding the word
aforethought?

Love aforethought?
Wonder aforethought?
Spite aforethought?
Awe aforethought?

Answers please.....

Marc.

[David Jones]

Post by M***@aol.com
Here's another thread, then, for the literary-minded members of this
forum: what other words have you ever seen preceding the word
aforethought?
Love aforethought?
Wonder aforethought?
Spite aforethought?
Awe aforethought?
Answers please.....

try http://knowledgeaforethought.blogs.com/

[M***@aol.com]

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
Although, the anomalies on the Underground are curious!
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood
In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

Just out of interest, where did you get the capitalised place names
from? Merton Council spells Colliers Wood without an apostrophe. And
Westminster Council spells St John's Wood both ways (as does LUL).

I got it from my Geographer's A to Z.

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

John, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the apostrophe. The
Court is the Court of the Earl, hence Earl' Court; likewise the Green
is that of the Parson, hence Parson's Green. They are both nouns.

Whether Baron is singular or plural (Barons), either requires an
apostrophe!

Post by John B
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Marc.

[Richard M Willis]

Post by M***@aol.com
John, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the apostrophe. The
Court is the Court of the Earl, hence Earl' Court; likewise the Green
is that of the Parson, hence Parson's Green. They are both nouns.
Whether Baron is singular or plural (Barons), either requires an
apostrophe!

Indeed. However one uses an apostrophe (or doesn't have one), it
must be consistent with the station name being a NOUN PHRASE !

A station can not be called "Everything in the garden is green and lovely"
but it can be called "Saddam's Bomb Shelter".

Richard [in SG19]

[John Rowland]

Post by Richard M Willis
However one uses an apostrophe (or doesn't have one), it
must be consistent with the station name being a NOUN PHRASE !
A station can not be called "Everything in the garden is green and lovely"

Why not? About five tube stations are named after pubs, and a pub called
"Everything in the garden is green and
lovely" is not too hard to imagine... or is it? Surely some pub names are
not noun phrases?

[Richard M Willis]

Post by John Rowland
Why not? About five tube stations are named after pubs, and a pub called
"Everything in the garden is green and
lovely" is not too hard to imagine... or is it? Surely some pub names are
not noun phrases?

I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can find
one, I'd be well interested.

Oh.. Actually, yes, there's The Case Is Altered at Fosdyke.

Richard [in SG19]

[John B]

Post by Richard M Willis

Post by John Rowland
Why not? About five tube stations are named after pubs, and a pub called
"Everything in the garden is green and
lovely" is not too hard to imagine... or is it? Surely some pub names are
not noun phrases?

I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can find
one, I'd be well interested.
Oh.. Actually, yes, there's The Case Is Altered at Fosdyke.

In London...
Ain't Nothing But Blues in Soho
The Defectors Weld at Shepherd's Bush
Dicey's The Galway Hooker at Neasden
Dream Bags Jaguar Shoes at Hoxton
Ha! Ha! in various places
Hung, Drawn & Quartered at Tower Hill
Liberty Bounds at Tower Hill
Monkey Chews at Primrose Hill
1802 at West India Quay
Rock The Boat at Waterloo
Tally Ho in Finchley

...not counting single-not-nouns like Imbibe and Lush (well,
technically Lush is a noun, but I doubt that's the sense they're going
for...)

[John Rowland]

Post by Richard M Willis
I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can
find one, I'd be well interested.

...single-not-nouns like Imbibe and Lush (well,
technically Lush is a noun, but I doubt that's the sense they're going
for...)

I'd say that's exactly the sense they are going for.

[John B]

Post by John Rowland

Post by Richard M Willis
I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can
find one, I'd be well interested.

...single-not-nouns like Imbibe and Lush (well,
technically Lush is a noun, but I doubt that's the sense they're going
for...)

I'd say that's exactly the sense they are going for.

Not sure about that - it's not exactly a Walkabout-ish "how much can I
drink before I go to hospital" venue. I think they're going for
lush-as-adjective; I doubt its Young And Beautiful target audience even
know "lush" in its 70's-term-for-pisshead sense.

[Tom Anderson]

Post by John B

Post by John Rowland

Post by Richard M Willis
I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can
find one, I'd be well interested.

...single-not-nouns like Imbibe and Lush (well,
technically Lush is a noun, but I doubt that's the sense they're going
for...)

I'd say that's exactly the sense they are going for.

Not sure about that - it's not exactly a Walkabout-ish "how much can I
drink before I go to hospital" venue. I think they're going for
lush-as-adjective; I doubt its Young And Beautiful target audience even
know "lush" in its 70's-term-for-pisshead sense.

My housemates (barring one Scot) didn't know that meaning. I don't know if
they're the target audience; they're young, though, so that's at least one
out of two.

tom

[Ian Jelf]

Post by John B

Post by Richard M Willis

Post by John Rowland
Why not? About five tube stations are named after pubs, and a pub called
"Everything in the garden is green and
lovely" is not too hard to imagine... or is it? Surely some pub names are
not noun phrases?

I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can find
one, I'd be well interested.
Oh.. Actually, yes, there's The Case Is Altered at Fosdyke.

In London...
Ain't Nothing But Blues in Soho
The Defectors Weld at Shepherd's Bush
Dicey's The Galway Hooker at Neasden
Dream Bags Jaguar Shoes at Hoxton
Ha! Ha! in various places
Hung, Drawn & Quartered at Tower Hill
Liberty Bounds at Tower Hill
Monkey Chews at Primrose Hill
1802 at West India Quay
Rock The Boat at Waterloo
Tally Ho in Finchley

My favourite (and claimed to be the longest pub name in London) is the
"I Am the Only Running Footman" in Charles Street, Mayfair.

[John Rowland]

Post by Richard M Willis
I've never seen a pub name that was not a noun phrase. If you can find
one, I'd be well interested.
Oh.. Actually, yes, there's The Case Is Altered at Fosdyke.

In Peep Show, Super Hans wanted to call his pub "Free The Paedos".

[John B]

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood
In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

Just out of interest, where did you get the capitalised place names
from? Merton Council spells Colliers Wood without an apostrophe. And
Westminster Council spells St John's Wood both ways (as does LUL).

I got it from my Geographer's A to Z.

Fairy snuff. Just goes to show deep the lack of consensus on how the
names are spelt is (despite the obvious grammatical correctness of
"Collier's Wood" if it were a phrase rather than a name).

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

"To court" is a verb, and barons is a legitimate plural...having
"green" as a verb would be pushing it a bit, though.

John, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the apostrophe. The
Court is the Court of the Earl, hence Earl' Court; likewise the Green
is that of the Parson, hence Parson's Green. They are both nouns.
Whether Baron is singular or plural (Barons), either requires an
apostrophe!

I agree - was just having fun. "Barons court, and colliers would given
half a chance", etc. The real answer is very much Paul Terry's one
downthread:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport.london/msg/17ce1c1e405b9ecf

[thoss]

John, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the apostrophe. The Court
is the Court of the Earl, hence Earl' Court; likewise the Green is that
of the Parson, hence Parson's Green. They are both nouns.
Whether Baron is singular or plural (Barons), either requires an
apostrophe!

Yes, but if plural it should be Barons' Court.

[Richard M Willis]

Post by thoss
Yes, but if plural it should be Barons' Court.

What sort of Baron is it, if he shares a court with other
Barons ? If you, as a Baron, don't have a court of your own,
you're not a real Baron.

Richard [n SG19]

[John Rowland]

Post by Richard M Willis

Post by thoss
Yes, but if plural it should be Barons' Court.

What sort of Baron is it, if he shares a court with other
Barons ? If you, as a Baron, don't have a court of your own,
you're not a real Baron.

Maybe it's a tennis court where all the barons play each other... while
being watched by green parsons.

[Richard Rundle]

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
Although, the anomalies on the Underground are curious!
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood
In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

Just out of interest, where did you get the capitalised place names
from? Merton Council spells Colliers Wood without an apostrophe. And
Westminster Council spells St John's Wood both ways (as does LUL).

The local football team, Colliers Wood United is spelt everywhere without an
apostrophe.

[James Farrar]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:33:46 +0100, "Richard Rundle"

Post by Richard Rundle

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
Although, the anomalies on the Underground are curious!
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood
In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

Just out of interest, where did you get the capitalised place names
from? Merton Council spells Colliers Wood without an apostrophe. And
Westminster Council spells St John's Wood both ways (as does LUL).

The local football team, Colliers Wood United is spelt everywhere without an
apostrophe.

Speaking of football teams, reminds me of the bizareness with
Borehamwood (or is it Boreham Wood?)

[Dave Arquati]

Post by Richard Rundle

Post by John B

Post by M***@aol.com
Although, the anomalies on the Underground are curious!
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
COLLIER'S WOOD / Colliers Wood
ST. JOHN'S WOOD / St. Johns Wood
In the foregoing, all except Earl's Court, the Underground station has
omitted a necessary apostrophe.

Just out of interest, where did you get the capitalised place names
from? Merton Council spells Colliers Wood without an apostrophe. And
Westminster Council spells St John's Wood both ways (as does LUL).

The local football team, Colliers Wood United is spelt everywhere without an
apostrophe.

Maybe the fans haven't really got the hang of apostrophes... See also:
Queens Park Rangers.

[James Farrar]

Post by M***@aol.com
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)

But "Baron's Court Road".

[M***@aol.com]

Post by James Farrar

Post by M***@aol.com
EARLS COURT / Earl's Court
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)

But "Baron's Court Road".
--
James Farrar

Well spotted, James!

Marc.

[Paul Terry]

Post by M***@aol.com
BARONS COURT / Barons Court (not so much an anomaly as simply both
being wrong, with the absence of an apostrophe)
PARSONS GREEN / Parsons Green (ditto)

Most place names are far older than the apostrophe, which was a
16th-century invention. For instance, Parsons Green never appears with
an apostrophe on old maps or other documents, even well after the 16th
century.

It is the rather haphazard modernisation of spellings over the years
that has resulted in many of the anomalous uses of apostrophes.

But Barons Court is an exception - it was a name invented just over 100
years ago. It didn't have an apostrophe then, and there is no real
reason to add one now.

[Richard M Willis]

"Paul Terry" <***@musonix.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > But Barons
Court is an exception - it was a name invented just over 100

Post by Paul Terry
years ago. It didn't have an apostrophe then, and there is no real
reason to add one now.

Indeed, I seem to remember being told that there never was an
actual Baron (fictional or otherwise) after which the place/station
was named: they just called it that to p*** off the people one station
up the line.

Richard [in SG19]

[John B]

Post by Paul Terry
Court is an exception - it was a name invented just over 100

Post by Paul Terry
years ago. It didn't have an apostrophe then, and there is no real
reason to add one now.

Indeed, I seem to remember being told that there never was an
actual Baron (fictional or otherwise) after which the place/station
was named: they just called it that to p*** off the people one station
up the line.

I think it was more a Victorian marketing ploy - Barons Court was a
purpose-built estate, and the builders wanted to cash in on Earl's
Court's name...

[Dave Arquati]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by JMUpton2000
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

"San John's Wood"? Interesting variation. :-)

Post by JMUpton2000
So which is right?

Either, both, or neither, as you wish. There is no single definitive
source for the "true" name of an Underground station, and many stations
have had this sort of variation.

Logic would suggest that St John's Wood is more likely to be correct,
because the wood then belongs to St John, rather than being a wood
consisting of multiple "St John"s, or named after "St Johns"...

...whereas Earl's Court or Barons Court could reasonably have their
counterpart spellings, given that a court might either belong to an earl
or a baron, or be composed of multiples thereof.

My local Shepherd's Bush always bugs me, because although most Tube maps
show it "correctly", buses rarely do - partly because although the
location seems to be officially named "Shepherd's Bush" and the green
space is called "Shepherd's Bush Common", the road that runs along the
southeastern and western sides of the Common is apparently "Shepherds
Bush Green"*. Argh!

I can understand how a bush would *belong* to a Shepherd, but a bush
composed of shepherds? Or maybe even "bush" is a verb... dogs bark,
sheep bleat, shepherds bush?

Post by Mark Brader
Of course, if the station was named after something, and *that* has an
official or universally used spelling, you might take that to be indicative...

* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Post by JMUpton2000
Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street on the
Jubilee Line the other day.
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St
John's Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.
So which is right?

Both, neither who knows.

On Wikipedia the principle that a lot are generally happy with (at least the
last time I'm aware this came up) is to use the current tube map spelling on
the basis that station decorations take a lot longer to change and some
platforms use multiple stations (e.g. King's Cross St. Pancras
Circle/H&C/Met) so this is the only real consistent standard.

[Richard J.]

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering

Post by JMUpton2000
Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street
on the Jubilee Line the other day.
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St
John's Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.
So which is right?

Both, neither who knows.
On Wikipedia the principle that a lot are generally happy with (at
least the last time I'm aware this came up) is to use the current
tube map spelling on the basis that station decorations take a lot
longer to change

But hasn't St John's Wood recently been refurbished? If the platform
roundels are new, were the apostrophes also omitted on the old ones?

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
and some platforms use multiple stations (e.g.
King's Cross St. Pancras Circle/H&C/Met) so this is the only real
consistent standard.

Not sure what point you're making there. King's Cross St Pancras is
AFAIK the consistent name for all the LU platforms there.

[Richard M Willis]

Post by JMUpton2000
Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street on the
Jubilee Line the other day.
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.
So which is right?

Both and Neither. LUL stations are full of anomalies like this.
D Rose's Diagrammatic History has notes on the subject. There are
many places where station names have mutated and had the "suffix gradually
dropped".

E.g. Totteridge and Whetstone is called simply Totteridge on the actual
station; there is no mention of "and Whetstone" in the station's
name anywhere at that station other than on the system-wide maps.

Post by JMUpton2000
Regards
John M Upton

[asdf]

Post by Richard M Willis
E.g. Totteridge and Whetstone is called simply Totteridge on the actual
station; there is no mention of "and Whetstone" in the station's
name anywhere at that station other than on the system-wide maps.

It says "& Whetstone" at least on the outside of the station building:

Loading Image...

[Richard M Willis]

Post by Richard M Willis
E.g. Totteridge and Whetstone is called simply Totteridge on the actual
station; there is no mention of "and Whetstone" in the station's
name anywhere at that station other than on the system-wide maps.

It does ?
I shall have to go and see this. It never used to when I lived there:
just "Totteridge".

Richard [in SG19]

[Tristán White]

The roundels are wrong.

His name is John, not Johns.

Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.

JOHN'S

MARTIN'S




In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So

SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else

SPANIARD'S INN


Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.

Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE

But never JAMES PALACE



The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is
concerned where I did my studies and I am a sessional lecturer:

If it's Greek, it's always S'

If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.

Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Tristán White
The roundels are wrong.
His name is John, not Johns.
Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.
JOHN'S
MARTIN'S
In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So
SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else
SPANIARD'S INN
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE
The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is
If it's Greek, it's always S'
If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.
Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

Whilst agreeing with almost everyting you have written, your final
paragraph is somewhat contentious. It would imply that Jesus was Greek!

In her amusing book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" Lynn Truss (mistakenly,
I think) states the rule as being that one omits the "s" where the
proper noun is of "ancient" origin, whatever that may mean. But she
then goes on to disprove this rule by quoting "St. Thomas' Hospital" as
being an exception to the rule!

I am always consistent in omitting the final "s", and as a rule that
cannot be faulted.

Marc.

[Richard J.]

Post by M***@aol.com
In her amusing book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" Lynn Truss (mistakenly,
I think) states the rule as being that one omits the "s" where the
proper noun is of "ancient" origin, whatever that may mean. But she
then goes on to disprove this rule by quoting "St. Thomas' Hospital"
as being an exception to the rule!

IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if people
invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it stands, and
quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example. The webmaster at their site
once tried to persuade me that the spelling reflected the fact that
there were two saints called Thomas connected with the hospital, but of
course that would make it "St Thomases' Hospital".

[Martin Rich]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:24:05 GMT, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.
IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if people
invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it stands, and
quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example.

St Thomas' Hospital gets a specific mention along these lines in the
Times style guide (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-560,00.html and scroll
down to 'apostrophes') where the hospital's house style takes
precedence over the newspaper's

Martin

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Martin Rich
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:24:05 GMT, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.
IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if people
invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it stands, and
quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example.

St Thomas' Hospital gets a specific mention along these lines in the
Times style guide (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-560,00.html and scroll
down to 'apostrophes') where the hospital's house style takes
precedence over the newspaper's
Martin

Thanks for that link, Martin.

I have read it and disagree profoundly with their accusation that St.
Thomas' Hospital is a "whim". How patronisingly offensive.

Would they be equally patronising when referring to "Jesus' birthplace"
or "Zeus' Temple" or "King James' Version" (as in bible)? Only one of
these is of two syllables, and none of these are of Greek origin or a
"whim"!

And, I'm sure (in the days when I still read that newspaper, before it
became tabloid) I have seen "Dickens' works" or similar, and never
"Dickens's works" which I would have remembered! And, I have NEVER seen
either in that newspaper or elsewhere reference to "The Times's Letters
Page" or the "The Times's leader"!

The simple and easy-to-remember rule is to omit the final "s" in all
possessive plurals.

Marc.

(Admittedly, I only obtained a "B" in English Language O-Level, and
that cross I have worn with much pain ever since!)

M.

[Richard J.]

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by Martin Rich
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:24:05 GMT, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.
IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if
people invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it
stands, and quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example.

St Thomas' Hospital gets a specific mention along these lines in the
Times style guide (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-560,00.html and scroll
down to 'apostrophes') where the hospital's house style takes
precedence over the newspaper's
Martin

Thanks for that link, Martin.
I have read it and disagree profoundly with their accusation that St.
Thomas' Hospital is a "whim". How patronisingly offensive.

Their basic rule is to "follow the rule of writing what is voiced".
Everyone who I have heard speak the name of the hospital have said "St
Thomas's", so to write it any other way is indeed a whim.

Post by M***@aol.com
Would they be equally patronising when referring to "Jesus'
birthplace" or "Zeus' Temple" or "King James' Version" (as in bible)?
Only one of these is of two syllables, and none of these are of Greek
origin or a "whim"!

They seem to use "King James version" without an apostrophe.

Post by M***@aol.com
And, I'm sure (in the days when I still read that newspaper, before it
became tabloid) I have seen "Dickens' works" or similar, and never
"Dickens's works" which I would have remembered! And, I have NEVER
seen either in that newspaper or elsewhere reference to "The Times's
Letters Page" or the "The Times's leader"!

They used "Dickens's" on 20/5/06. Their style guide allows "The Times's
style" OR "Times style".

Post by M***@aol.com
The simple and easy-to-remember rule is to omit the final "s" in all
possessive plurals.

That's fine, but the discussion that you initiated was about possessive
*singulars* where the name ends in "s". Generally, the accepted rule is
to add "'s" to the name, as in St James's Park, with certain exceptions
including old Greek names, Jesus, etc. As someone whose surname ends in
an "s", I find it offensive (well, annoying anyway) if someone treats it
as a plural noun, or sticks the apostrophe in the middle of my name
(before my "s").

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Richard J.

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by Martin Rich
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:24:05 GMT, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.
IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if
people invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it
stands, and quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example.

St Thomas' Hospital gets a specific mention along these lines in the
Times style guide (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-560,00.html and scroll
down to 'apostrophes') where the hospital's house style takes
precedence over the newspaper's
Martin

Thanks for that link, Martin.
I have read it and disagree profoundly with their accusation that St.
Thomas' Hospital is a "whim". How patronisingly offensive.

Their basic rule is to "follow the rule of writing what is voiced".
Everyone who I have heard speak the name of the hospital have said "St
Thomas's", so to write it any other way is indeed a whim.

Post by M***@aol.com
Would they be equally patronising when referring to "Jesus'
birthplace" or "Zeus' Temple" or "King James' Version" (as in bible)?
Only one of these is of two syllables, and none of these are of Greek
origin or a "whim"!

They seem to use "King James version" without an apostrophe.

Post by M***@aol.com
And, I'm sure (in the days when I still read that newspaper, before it
became tabloid) I have seen "Dickens' works" or similar, and never
"Dickens's works" which I would have remembered! And, I have NEVER
seen either in that newspaper or elsewhere reference to "The Times's
Letters Page" or the "The Times's leader"!

They used "Dickens's" on 20/5/06. Their style guide allows "The Times's
style" OR "Times style".

Post by M***@aol.com
The simple and easy-to-remember rule is to omit the final "s" in all
possessive plurals.

That's fine, but the discussion that you initiated was about possessive
*singulars* where the name ends in "s".

Sorry, Richard, my mistake: I should have written

The simple and easy-to-remember rule is not to use an "s" after the
apostrophe in all
possessive nouns (singular or plural) which end in "s".

Generally, the accepted rule is

Post by Richard J.
to add "'s" to the name, as in St James's Park, with certain exceptions
including old Greek names, Jesus, etc. As someone whose surname ends in
an "s", I find it offensive (well, annoying anyway) if someone treats it
as a plural noun, or sticks the apostrophe in the middle of my name
(before my "s").

I would agree with you. Most people mis-spell my Christian name too!

Post by Richard J.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Marc.

[thoss]

Post by Richard J.
They seem to use "King James version" without an apostrophe.

That's OK. It's The King James version, not the version belonging to
the king.

[Phil Clark]

Post by M***@aol.com
Would they be equally patronising when referring to "Jesus' birthplace"
or "Zeus' Temple" or "King James' Version" (as in bible)? Only one of
these is of two syllables, and none of these are of Greek origin or a
"whim"!

Er... Zeus is Greek, and Jesus is from the Greek form of a Hebrew (or
Aramaic) original.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Phil Clark

Post by M***@aol.com
Would they be equally patronising when referring to "Jesus' birthplace"
or "Zeus' Temple" or "King James' Version" (as in bible)? Only one of
these is of two syllables, and none of these are of Greek origin or a
"whim"!

Er... Zeus is Greek, and Jesus is from the Greek form of a Hebrew (or
Aramaic) original.

Correct, AND, it is the "King James Version". It is named for the King
who authorized the translation. The "S" is not a possessive.

Adrian

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Richard J.

Post by M***@aol.com
In her amusing book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" Lynn Truss (mistakenly,
I think) states the rule as being that one omits the "s" where the
proper noun is of "ancient" origin, whatever that may mean. But she
then goes on to disprove this rule by quoting "St. Thomas' Hospital"
as being an exception to the rule!

IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if people
invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it stands, and
quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example. The webmaster at their site
once tried to persuade me that the spelling reflected the fact that
there were two saints called Thomas connected with the hospital, but of
course that would make it "St Thomases' Hospital".
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard, you remember correctly about what Miss Truss wrote about St.
Thomas' Hospital. Not quite sure where her "brand name" - the hospital
has been around for a good while longer than either that concept!

Highly amusing what you wrote about the two saints! I hail from two
institutions where that rule does apply, but people inevitably get in
wrong - Kings' House (in my old school - after Kings Charles I and II)
and Queens' College, Cambridge (after Queens Elizabeth Woodville and
Margaret of Anjou).

Marc.

[Tom Anderson]

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by Richard J.

Post by M***@aol.com
In her amusing book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" Lynn Truss (mistakenly,
I think) states the rule as being that one omits the "s" where the
proper noun is of "ancient" origin, whatever that may mean. But she
then goes on to disprove this rule by quoting "St. Thomas' Hospital"
as being an exception to the rule!

IIRC (I don't have the book to hand at present), she said that if people
invent a brand name, one should reluctantly accept it as it stands, and
quoted "St Thomas' Hospital" as an example. The webmaster at their site
once tried to persuade me that the spelling reflected the fact that
there were two saints called Thomas connected with the hospital, but of
course that would make it "St Thomases' Hospital".

Ss Thomases', isn't it? Or would you have to say Ss Thomas and Thomas? Now
they're starting to sound like a Welsh greengrocer ...

Post by M***@aol.com
Highly amusing what you wrote about the two saints! I hail from two
institutions where that rule does apply, but people inevitably get in
wrong - Kings' House (in my old school - after Kings Charles I and II)
and Queens' College, Cambridge

But, just to keep you on your toes, Queen's College, Oxford!

tom

[James Farrar]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:35:30 +0100, Tom Anderson

Post by Tom Anderson

Post by M***@aol.com
Highly amusing what you wrote about the two saints! I hail from two
institutions where that rule does apply, but people inevitably get in
wrong - Kings' House (in my old school - after Kings Charles I and II)
and Queens' College, Cambridge

But, just to keep you on your toes, Queen's College, Oxford!

One Queen at Oxford; there's only one Queen at Oxford! :-)

[M***@aol.com]

Post by James Farrar
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:35:30 +0100, Tom Anderson

Post by Tom Anderson

Post by M***@aol.com
Highly amusing what you wrote about the two saints! I hail from two
institutions where that rule does apply, but people inevitably get in
wrong - Kings' House (in my old school - after Kings Charles I and II)
and Queens' College, Cambridge

But, just to keep you on your toes, Queen's College, Oxford!

One Queen at Oxford; there's only one Queen at Oxford! :-)
--
James Farrar

Reminds me of the old college joke, about the fresh-faced undergraduate
walking along the Cam, looking for the Queens' College boathouse, and
coming across a group of beefy looking oarsmen, saying, "are you lot
Queens' ", before being upended into the river.

Well, it made me laugh when I first heard it!

Marc.

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by M***@aol.com
Reminds me of the old college joke, about the fresh-faced
undergraduate walking along the Cam, looking for the Queens' College
boathouse, and coming across a group of beefy looking oarsmen, saying,
"are you lot Queens' ", before being upended into the river.
Well, it made me laugh when I first heard it!

Well, in my day we wondered by that was the only college (before
co-residence) with double sets which mostly had shared bedrooms.

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Colin Rosenstiel

Post by M***@aol.com
Reminds me of the old college joke, about the fresh-faced
undergraduate walking along the Cam, looking for the Queens' College
boathouse, and coming across a group of beefy looking oarsmen, saying,
"are you lot Queens' ", before being upended into the river.
Well, it made me laugh when I first heard it!

Well, in my day we wondered by that was the only college (before
co-residence) with double sets which mostly had shared bedrooms.
--
Colin Rosenstiel

Yes, Colin, and I was in Chapel on that famous day in 1988 when the
Dean (who married a Corpus graduate contemporary of mine, who herself
went on to become Chaplain of King's and had an infamous affair with
their distinguished Director of Music before being dispatched!)
advocated in a sermon the MIXED sharing of sets. That was so
controversial, it made local headline news the next day!

I have to say that those double sets are pure luxury (en suite too):
one is now a guest room in which I occasionally stay. I was able to
entertain my instructing solicitor to tea there after Crown Court trial
last year - she couldn't believe the opulence!

Are you a University member, Colin?

Marc.

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by M***@aol.com
Are you a University member, Colin?

Taken to email.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by Tristán White
If it's Greek, it's always S'
If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.
Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

Whilst agreeing with almost everyting you have written, your final
paragraph is somewhat contentious. It would imply that Jesus was Greek!
I am always consistent in omitting the final "s", and as a rule that
cannot be faulted.
Marc.

We take out English name Jesus (I assume you refer to Jesus of
Nazareth) from his name in the Koine Grecian dialect. The Hebrew
(Y'shua) translates into Joshua.

Adrian.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tristán White
The roundels are wrong.
His name is John, not Johns.
Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.
JOHN'S
MARTIN'S
In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So
SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else
SPANIARD'S INN
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE
The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is
If it's Greek, it's always S'
If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.
Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tristán White
The roundels are wrong.
His name is John, not Johns.
Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.
JOHN'S
MARTIN'S
In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So
SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else
SPANIARD'S INN
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE
The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is
If it's Greek, it's always S'
If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.
Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

Good post, but, I believe the normal English grammar rules for
apostrophes are generally dropped on street name signs. Therefore if a
subway station is named after a street it may be appropriate for its
name to be spelt the same way.

<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>

Adrian.

[Jim Hawkins]

<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>

Adrian.

Whilst an urn may be Grecian, the language is Greek.

Jim Hawkins

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>
Adrian.
Whilst an urn may be Grecian, the language is Greek.
Jim Hawkins

And, unfortunately in street venacular, Greek has come to mean buggery.
Therefore it is more pleasing, to my ears, to hear that "The
Watercress Line has a Grecian locomative" (a locomative imported from
Greece), than "The Watercress Line has a Greek locomative" (a buggered
locomotive!)

Adrian.

[M***@aol.com]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by a***@yahoo.com
<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>
Adrian.
Whilst an urn may be Grecian, the language is Greek.
Jim Hawkins

And, unfortunately in street venacular, Greek has come to mean buggery.
Therefore it is more pleasing, to my ears, to hear that "The
Watercress Line has a Grecian locomative" (a locomative imported from
Greece), than "The Watercress Line has a Greek locomative" (a buggered
locomotive!)
Adrian.

So, Adrian, a locomative becomes a locomotive only when buggered?

Personally speaking I will be keeping my own private parts well away
from the firebox!

Marc.

[Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS]

Post by M***@aol.com

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by a***@yahoo.com
<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>
Adrian.
Whilst an urn may be Grecian, the language is Greek.
Jim Hawkins

And, unfortunately in street venacular, Greek has come to mean buggery.
Therefore it is more pleasing, to my ears, to hear that "The
Watercress Line has a Grecian locomative" (a locomative imported from
Greece), than "The Watercress Line has a Greek locomative" (a buggered
locomotive!)
Adrian.

So, Adrian, a locomative becomes a locomotive only when buggered?
Personally speaking I will be keeping my own private parts well away
from the firebox!
Marc.

But not as buggered as my spelling.

Adrian.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>
Adrian.
Whilst an urn may be Grecian, the language is Greek.
Jim Hawkins

Mou ine Ellinika

[thoss]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
the normal English grammar rules for
apostrophes are generally dropped on street name signs

Why?

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
the normal English grammar rules for
apostrophes are generally dropped on street name signs

Why?

In general, all punctuation and diacritical marks are dropped to make signs
and addresses as easy to read/write as possible. Therefore "St. John's"
becomes "St Johns" (notice the two changes). At least where English is the
common language; I assume in languages where accents and such are used more
frequently, signmakers are more tolerant of them :)

I can't think of any roads near me with missing apostrophes, but there's a
Mañana Road near me, and the city and post office both write it as "Manana
Rd" to keep things simple (though it's "Mañana Rd" on highway signs).

S

[Solario]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by a***@yahoo.com
the normal English grammar rules for
apostrophes are generally dropped on street name signs

Why?

In general, all punctuation and diacritical marks are dropped to make signs
and addresses as easy to read/write as possible. Therefore "St. John's"
becomes "St Johns" (notice the two changes). At least where English is the
common language; I assume in languages where accents and such are used more
frequently, signmakers are more tolerant of them :)
I can't think of any roads near me with missing apostrophes, but there's a
Mañana Road near me, and the city and post office both write it as "Manana
Rd" to keep things simple (though it's "Mañana Rd" on highway signs).
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

There is a road through Beverly Hills, its name is spelt variously
"Cañon Drive" and "Canon Drive".

Adrian.

[thoss]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In general, all punctuation and diacritical marks are dropped to make
signs and addresses as easy to read/write as possible. Therefore "St.
John's" becomes "St Johns" (notice the two changes).

Well, the first change is welcome because your original is wrong IMHO.
To quote the Concise Oxford Dictionary "Abbreviations are made chiefly
in two ways....(2)Some portion of the middle of the word is dropped out,
the first and last letter being retained...the writing of a full stop at
the end of these, though now usual, is to be deprecated....The method
adopted in the following list is to omit the otiose full stop".

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <44a027e3$0$9848$***@free.teranews.com> "Stephen Sprunk" <***@sprunk.org> writes:
...

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In general, all punctuation and diacritical marks are dropped to make signs
and addresses as easy to read/write as possible. Therefore "St. John's"
becomes "St Johns" (notice the two changes).

As far as I know in British English there is no full stop following an
abbreviation if the last letter of the abbreviation is also the last
letter of the complete word. (This is different in US English.)

[ted rosenberg]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Tristán White
The roundels are wrong.
His name is John, not Johns.
Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.
JOHN'S
MARTIN'S
In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So
SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else
SPANIARD'S INN
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE
The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is
If it's Greek, it's always S'
If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.
Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

Good post, but, I believe the normal English grammar rules for
apostrophes are generally dropped on street name signs. Therefore if a
subway station is named after a street it may be appropriate for its
name to be spelt the same way.
<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>
Adrian.

WRONG !!!

"Johns" is a perfectly good name. A little rare, but not as much as you
think. I know two men with first names of "Johns" not "John" not
"John's" and then there is Johns Hopkins Universty - JOHNS.

[peter abraham]

Post by Tristán White
The roundels are wrong.
His name is John, not Johns.
Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.
JOHN'S
MARTIN'S
In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So
SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else
SPANIARD'S INN
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE
The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is

The name is derived from the Saint or Saints (there being two of
them), reference to any other John being irrelevent. Generally as in
French,when writing in majescules, such technical drama as punctuation
is not only unnecessary but not easily read by those hard of hearing,
thinking or seeing. people other than car drivers may also find
difficulty as grammar has not been taught in UK for a very long time.

[Ned Carlson]

Post by Tristán White
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE

Can't agree on that. It's a palace or court named for St. James,
not possessed by St. James. Apostrophe indicates possession.
Ambassadors to Britain are appointed to the Court of Saint James, not
Saint James' Court. However, the official royal website calls the
palace, St. James's Palace.

The irony is that St. James was supposedly buried in Compostela, Spain,
and is one of the patron saints of Spain. In Spanish, he has
a special name, "Santiago". You'd think after defeating the
Spanish Armada, the royal house might have thought about renaming
the palace, huh?

[Roland Perry]

However, the official royal website calls the palace, St. James's
Palace.

And all the old maps I have ever found (going back centuries) also use
that spelling (for the palace and nearby roads, churches etc).

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Roland Perry

However, the official royal website calls the palace, St. James's
Palace.

And all the old maps I have ever found (going back centuries) also use
that spelling (for the palace and nearby roads, churches etc).
--
Roland Perry

So the question is: Do cartographers follow street signposting
conventions, or, do they "correct" the spelling of street names
back into their normal English form?

Moreover, has cartographic practice, in this respect, changed over
time?

Adrian.

[Roland Perry]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Roland Perry

However, the official royal website calls the palace, St. James's
Palace.

And all the old maps I have ever found (going back centuries) also use
that spelling (for the palace and nearby roads, churches etc).

So the question is: Do cartographers follow street signposting
conventions, or, do they "correct" the spelling of street names
back into their normal English form?

I doubt if the old maps I have are derived from street signage.

Post by a***@yahoo.com
Moreover, has cartographic practice, in this respect, changed over
time?

If there's a dispute between the cartographer's long term understanding
of what a street is called, and what the council puts a sign up saying,
I expect they have a dialogue.

[Paul Terry]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
So the question is: Do cartographers follow street signposting
conventions, or, do they "correct" the spelling of street names
back into their normal English form?

Don't rely on cartographers (not at least before the late 19th century)
for definitive spellings. It is common to find quite different spellings
of the same word, such as "fyelde and feild" [sic], or "saint and
seynte" on the same map - remember that English spelling was not
standardised in bygone times.

Post by a***@yahoo.com
Moreover, has cartographic practice, in this respect, changed over
time?

In cartography there has been a long tradition of copying and updating
earlier maps (with some notable exceptions) because of the cost of
surveying and plate-making. It would probably be fair to say that the
two big London re-mapping projects in the 1860s (Stanford's Library Map
and Weller's Dispatch Atlas) tended to set new standards of accuracy.
These days, I suspect that mapmakers generally follow the lead given by
the Ordnance Survey, especially with regard to spellings of road and
place names.

[Richard Rundle]

Post by Paul Terry
In cartography there has been a long tradition of copying and updating
earlier maps (with some notable exceptions) because of the cost of
surveying and plate-making. It would probably be fair to say that the
two big London re-mapping projects in the 1860s (Stanford's Library Map
and Weller's Dispatch Atlas) tended to set new standards of accuracy.
These days, I suspect that mapmakers generally follow the lead given by
the Ordnance Survey, especially with regard to spellings of road and
place names.

And the Ordnance Survey should get their information on street names from
the Local Authorities, who have a statutory function for Street Naming &
Numbering. You can have a lot of sleep-inducing time with this stuff if you
want to look at British Standard BS7666.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Richard Rundle

Post by Paul Terry
In cartography there has been a long tradition of copying and updating
earlier maps (with some notable exceptions) because of the cost of
surveying and plate-making. It would probably be fair to say that the
two big London re-mapping projects in the 1860s (Stanford's Library Map
and Weller's Dispatch Atlas) tended to set new standards of accuracy.
These days, I suspect that mapmakers generally follow the lead given by
the Ordnance Survey, especially with regard to spellings of road and
place names.

And the Ordnance Survey should get their information on street names from
the Local Authorities, who have a statutory function for Street Naming &
Numbering. You can have a lot of sleep-inducing time with this stuff if you
want to look at British Standard BS7666.

Thank you. I did a Google search on "British Standard BS7666". It
returned some excellent information about UK Mailing Address
structures. I noted the absence of punctuation. However, I didn't
notice anything directly relating to street name sign posting. Maybe I
need to dig a little deeper.

This was great information.

Adrian.

[Ned Carlson]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
So the question is: Do cartographers follow street signposting
conventions, or, do they "correct" the spelling of street names
back into their normal English form?
Moreover, has cartographic practice, in this respect, changed over
time?
Adrian.

What I'm wondering, is HTF did apostrophes get into the
English language, anyway? None of its ancestor/contributing
languages (Anglo-Saxon, Norse, French, Celtic) use or
used apostrophes, did they?

Didn't the British government go on a campaign a few years
ago to eliminate unnecessary punctuation in bureaucratic
communications, aside from commas and full stops (what us
Americans call a period)?

[Paul Terry]

Post by Ned Carlson
What I'm wondering, is HTF did apostrophes get into the
English language, anyway? None of its ancestor/contributing
languages (Anglo-Saxon, Norse, French, Celtic) use or
used apostrophes, did they?

The apostrophe (to indicate elision) was used in French and in Italian
before it appeared in English (from soon after 1500), and is still used
in both languages (d'Avignon, d'Italia, etc) for the same purpose.

It was used in the same way in English ("Th'expense of spirit in a waste
of shame"). But one of the most common examples was to show the omitted
final e in the genitive singular of Old English (which ends with -es in
the majority of nouns) - thus Kinges became King's and childes became
child's. And from this the apostrophe-s ('s) came to be used for the
genitive (possessive) form of most nouns, thus representing the spoken
form of the language more faithfully than the Old English form.

(That's a bit simplified ... but this is starting to get a bit
off-topic, even if it does still relate to the thread's subject :)

[Giovanni Drogo]

shame"). But one of the most common examples was to show the omitted final e
in the genitive singular of Old English (which ends with -es in the majority
of nouns) - thus Kinges became King's and childes became child's.

Curiously enough, when teaching English to Italian the "'s" construct is
called (in italian) "genitivo sassone" (saxon genitive)

[thoss]

Post by Paul Terry
The apostrophe (to indicate elision) was used in French and in Italian
before it appeared in English (from soon after 1500), and is still used
in both languages (d'Avignon, d'Italia, etc) for the same purpose.
It was used in the same way in English ("Th'expense of spirit in a waste
of shame"). But one of the most common examples was to show the omitted
final e in the genitive singular of Old English (which ends with -es in
the majority of nouns) - thus Kinges became King's and childes became
child's. And from this the apostrophe-s ('s) came to be used for the
genitive (possessive) form of most nouns, thus representing the spoken
form of the language more faithfully than the Old English form.

I always thought it was from omitting hi in King his, leading to King's.

[Paul Terry]

Post by thoss

thus Kinges became King's and childes became child's. And from this
the apostrophe-s ('s) came to be used for the genitive (possessive)
form of most nouns, thus representing the spoken form of the language
more faithfully than the Old English form.

I always thought it was from omitting hi in King his, leading to King's.

That has long been used as a simple explanation in teaching of what the
genitive case *can* indicate, but it is not rooted in historical fact.

For instance, Queen's College is rather unlikely to be the modern form
of "Queen his college" :)

As I said above, the apostrophe simply indicates the omission of the
final e from the Old English genitive ending, -es.

Thus, King's College is the modern form of Kinges College.
And Queen's College is the modern form of Queenes College.

And, although the apostrophe can now be used to differentiate between
the genitive singular and the genitive plural (Queen's College Oxford v.
Queens' College Cambridge, mentioned earlier), this is a relatively
modern usage - the Cambridge College was known as Queenes and then
Queen's until 1831 (when historicism and affectation combined to move
the apostrophe along one letter :)

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Ned Carlson
What I'm wondering, is HTF did apostrophes get into the
English language, anyway? None of its ancestor/contributing
languages (Anglo-Saxon, Norse, French, Celtic) use or
used apostrophes, did they?
Didn't the British government go on a campaign a few years
ago to eliminate unnecessary punctuation in bureaucratic
communications, aside from commas and full stops (what us
Americans call a period)?

There was no such campaign to my knowledge. But, I have been a
resident of these United States for most of the past twenty years. I
believe it is the UK practice not to use commas in legal documents. I
am still surprised when I see that my attorney has used them in court
submissions.

There is also a "Plain English" movement in the UK, championed, I
believe by one Trevor MacDonald.

Adrian.

[Roland Perry]

I believe it is the UK practice not to use commas in legal documents.

Commas are used very sparingly in Acts of Parliament, because they can
sometimes introduce ambiguities.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Ned Carlson
What I'm wondering, is HTF did apostrophes get into the
English language, anyway? None of its ancestor/contributing
languages (Anglo-Saxon, Norse, French, Celtic) use or
used apostrophes, did they?
Didn't the British government go on a campaign a few years
ago to eliminate unnecessary punctuation in bureaucratic
communications, aside from commas and full stops (what us
Americans call a period)?

There was no such campaign to my knowledge. But, I have been a
resident of these United States for most of the past twenty years. I
believe it is the UK practice not to use commas in legal documents.

Probably not so much avoiding commas in particular as more generally
avoiding abbreviations which in some cases could have serious
consequences due to uncertain meaning.
<snip>

[Paul Terry]

Post by Roland Perry

However, the official royal website calls the palace, St. James's
Palace.

And all the old maps I have ever found (going back centuries) also use
that spelling (for the palace and nearby roads, churches etc).

If you go back far enough, you will arrive at the pre-apostropheic age:
for instance, John Norden's plan of c.1600 gives "Saint James Parke".

But I certainly agree that "James's" appears on most maps after that
date, once the apostrophe had become an accepted device.

[M***@aol.com]

Post by Ned Carlson

Post by Tristán White
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE

Can't agree on that. It's a palace or court named for St. James,
not possessed by St. James. Apostrophe indicates possession.
Ambassadors to Britain are appointed to the Court of Saint James, not
Saint James' Court. However, the official royal website calls the
palace, St. James's Palace.

Sorry, Ned, but if your analogy were correct, then St. Paul's Cathedral
would be St. Pauls Cathedral and, to go right back to the original
subject of this thread, the woods concerned were no more possessed by
St. John than the Palace possessed by St. James or the Cathedral
possessed by St. Paul!

In this sense, that the wood / street / catheadral is named after
someone, these are possessive nouns.

Sir Edmund Halley hardly possessed the comet that is named after him,
called Halley's Comet!

The fact that Ambassadors are appointed to the Court of St. James is
immaterial. That just happens to be the way it's written. Equally
gramatically correct (although not used, simply by tradition, not
because it's gramatically incorrect) would be "Ambassador to St. James'
Court".

Post by Ned Carlson
The irony is that St. James was supposedly buried in Compostela, Spain,
and is one of the patron saints of Spain. In Spanish, he has
a special name, "Santiago". You'd think after defeating the
Spanish Armada, the royal house might have thought about renaming
the palace, huh?

Interesting!

Post by Ned Carlson
--
Ned Carlson
SW side of Chicago, USA
www.tubezone.net

Marc.

[Mark B]

Post by a***@yahoo.com

Post by Tristán White
The roundels are wrong.
His name is John, not Johns.
Therefore, the apostrophe HAS to go between the n and the s. Any other
signage is the product of illiterate designers.
JOHN'S
MARTIN'S
In the case of plural nouns, the apostrophe always goes afterwards. So
SPANIARDS' INN
if it refers to more than one Spaniard, or else
SPANIARD'S INN
Where there is some discussion is if the given name already ends with S.
Eg JAMES'S PALACE
or JAMES' PALACE
But never JAMES PALACE
The official line is, certainly as far as the University of London is
If it's Greek, it's always S'
If it's not, it's up to the individual as long as he or she is
consistent throughout.
Therefore, always Achilles' heel, Eros' statue, Nikolaidis' penalty
shot, Stavros' kebab house, Bacchus' wine, Androcles' lion, but if it's
not Greek, you can say James's Square or James' Square as long as it's
consistent throughout.

Good post, but, I believe the normal English grammar rules for
apostrophes are generally dropped on street name signs. Therefore if a
subway station is named after a street it may be appropriate for its
name to be spelt the same way.
<Pedant>Grecian is generally a more pleasing way to describe things
appertaining to the country Greece, than Greek.</pedant>
Adrian.

Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

[Solario]

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

<Opinion>

The first example could be wrong in context. If it is a street name
sign it should read "St James Park". If it is a park name board then
I guess St James' Park could be correct. I would expect a station name
board to follow street name sign conventions.

Example two is probably wrong in context. The timetable is not s
street sign or a formal postal address so the apostrophe should be
present.

Example three is correct.

</opinion>

Adrian.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Solario

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

<Opinion>
The first example could be wrong in context. If it is a street name
sign it should read "St James Park". If it is a park name board then
I guess St James' Park could be correct.

Only if it was named after two or more people called "Jame".

<snip>

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

I think you never will know which is right. If I remember right, there
are Earl's Court and Barron's Court, both with and without apostrophe.
LT uses the apostrophe in one of them, the street signs use it on the other.

[Paul Terry]

Post by Dik T. Winter

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

I think you never will know which is right. If I remember right, there
are Earl's Court and Barron's Court, both with and without apostrophe.
LT uses the apostrophe in one of them, the street signs use it on the other.

Exactly. When it comes to place names, their form is dictated by
historical precedent and custom rather than rules of grammar.

For instance, in Elizabethan times, travellers from the north would most
likely enter the city through "Bysshopes Gate". Despite the fact that
the standard genitive ending ("-es") indicates a possessive noun, it was
never modernised to "Bishop's Gate" or even "Bishops' Gate" - instead
(and as early as the 17th century) it became simply Bishopsgate.

[mmellor]

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

St James's Park, because that's the name of the park.

Mike

[tony sayer]

Post by mmellor

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

St James's Park, because that's the name of the park.
Mike

Seen on a car number plate yesterday

St John's Wood bmw or something like that .co.uk or .com ;)

[Richard J.]

Post by mmellor

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

St James's Park, because that's the name of the park.

From the mention of FGW, I think it's the station in Bristol that was
being referred to by Mark B, not the London park and station.

[Mark B]

Post by Richard J.

Post by mmellor

Post by Mark B
Which is right,
St James' Park (on the signs)
St James Park (in the FGW Timetable)
Pronounced St James's Park, both locally and on the AutoAnouncer

St James's Park, because that's the name of the park.

From the mention of FGW, I think it's the station in Bristol that was
being referred to by Mark B, not the London park and station.

Exeter :)

[C!]

Post by JMUpton2000
Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street on the
Jubilee Line the other day.
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

OT - one end of a street "Princes gardens" other end "Prince's
gardens" on the signs