|
Signs at St. James' Park
Ian Jelf wrote:
writes sigh Another sign that English isn't taught well these days. If you had been brought up in, say, Liverpool or Manchester, you would have been very familiar with the large store called Lewis's (different company to John Lewis). Ahem, or Birmingham! ;-) Is that the same Lewis's that took over Selfridges in Oxford? |
Signs at St. James' Park
"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Joe wrote: Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago. AFAIK there is only one incorrect "St. James' Park" sign (eastbound, near the front of the train, by the stairs). Considering that the LU HQ is above the station, it's remarkable that the sign has never been replaced. I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT TYPEFACE. By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the Johnston fonts that have been used over the years. This strikes me as weird, as the Johnston typeface was implemented before the switch from the solid red disc and bar to the roundel (as we know it today). Given this, can anyone confirm my findings and possibly provide some insight into this? Thanks, Michael |
Signs at St. James' Park
|
Signs at St. James' Park
"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Robin May wrote: (Michael Gamer) wrote the following in: om "Richard J." wrote in message ... Joe wrote: Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago. AFAIK there is only one incorrect "St. James' Park" sign (eastbound, near the front of the train, by the stairs). Considering that the LU HQ is above the station, it's remarkable that the sign has never been replaced. I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT TYPEFACE. By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the Johnston fonts that have been used over the years. That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like. It's also what they look like in the P22 Johnston Underground font that you can get for use on computers. The apostrophes more consistent with the use of the 'diamond' to dot the letter i are found in New Johnston, the font currently used by TfL. [SNIP...] Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the two. it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me If I can remember to take my digiCam next time I pass through, I'll photograph it. Michael |
Signs at St. James' Park
Michael Gamer wrote:
Robin May wrote: (Michael Gamer) wrote the following in: om Joe wrote: Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago. I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT TYPEFACE. By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the Johnston fonts that have been used over the years. That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like. snip Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the two. it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me I see what you mean. The "St. James' Park" sign is in a typeface that is close to but not identical to either Johnston or New Johnston. As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why. [Michael: I have photos of the signs. Email me (see sig) if you want copies.] -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like.
snip Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the two. it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me I see what you mean. The "St. James' Park" sign is in a typeface that is close to but not identical to either Johnston or New Johnston. As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why. [Michael: I have photos of the signs. Email me (see sig) if you want copies.] Perhaps Gill Sans? http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/F/...10005000.jhtml I know either Johnston or Gill Sans was based on the other, and it has similar looking Upper Case chars, and the correct apostrophe.. what do you think? Michael |
Signs at St. James' Park
Michael Gamer wrote:
That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like. snip Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the two. it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me I see what you mean. The "St. James' Park" sign is in a typeface that is close to but not identical to either Johnston or New Johnston. As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why. [Michael: I have photos of the signs. Email me (see sig) if you want copies.] Perhaps Gill Sans? http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/F/...10005000.jhtml I know either Johnston or Gill Sans was based on the other, and it has similar looking Upper Case chars, and the correct apostrophe.. what do you think? No, definitely not Gill Sans. The R is quite different. I've checked with Identifont and can't find anything that matches, though it's closest to New Johnston, apart from the apostrophe. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Terry Harper wrote: "Mait001" wrote in message ... I agree that "St. James' " or "St. James's" is a matter of debate. It is considered better practice to omit the additional "s", although I would not agree that it is grammatically wrong to include it. Why do I say "better practice"? Because it is The Queen's English and Her Majesty's Court is known as the "Court of St. James' " and not the Court of "St. James's". For example, Ambassadors are appointed to "the Court of St. James' ", not "the Court of St. James's" or even "the Court of St. James". There is no apostrophe in "The Court of St James". St James in this case is not the genitive case. True, but that's not actually what they call it. It's "The Court of St James's" in the Court Circular, and at www.royal.gov.uk. I assume it's short for St James's Palace. London Underground should be commended for using both spellings at this station since, as this thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted 'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable. One might argue for a consistent spelling if there was the possibility of confusing one place with another - but this does not apply here. |
Signs at St. James' Park
"umpston" wrote in message
m... London Underground should be commended for using both spellings at this station since, as this thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted 'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable. No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake. The station does not have two different names, and would not even if the eponymous park did. Incidentally, does one of the Ruislip Central lIne stations still have roundels which use completely the wrong font? -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk