"Peter Beale" wrote in message
o.uk...
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

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).

Elsewhere you would have been exhorted by adverts on trams and buses to
"Shop at Binns" (I think without any apostrophe - but the proprietor's
name was
Binns).

This is analogous to Tesco, W H Smith etc which don't use the possessive
either in their name.




My New Oxford Dictionary of English (OUP, 1998-2001), page 1632, says the
following:

's :- suffix denoting possession in singular nouns, also in plural nouns not
having a final -s: the car's engine | Mrs Ross's son | the children's
teacher

So they actually give an example "Mrs Ross's son" not "Mrs Ross' son",
suggesting that the former is acceptable and/or preferable to the latter.

"Robin Cox" wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
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).

Different company *from* ....

Go easy on him - at least he didn't say "different than"!

Hang on.
St. Thomas' is spelt that way because it is dedicated to TWO St. Thomas's.
Thomas is plural so it's St. Thomas' - see?

"Graham J" wrote in message
...
Park, just as I would say princess's or Thomas's. However many would find
Thomas's ugly and just use Thomas' (as in St Thomas' Hospital). Sometimes
I
do myself and I will sometimes say St James' Park when it trips off the
tongue better.

Robin Cox wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
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).

Different company *from* ....

That rule was described as a superstition and a fetish by Fowler in 1926
(or Gowers in 1965), and modern authorities agree with him that "different
to" and "different from" are both acceptable, and have been for hundreds of
years. Or can you quote a contrary view?

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

Nick wrote:
Hang on.
St. Thomas' is spelt that way because it is dedicated to TWO St.
Thomas's. Thomas is plural so it's St. Thomas' - see?

Nice try, Nick, but the church that gave its name to the hospital was
renamed in the Reformation and lost its designation to Thomas Beckett *in
exchange for* St Thomas the Apostle. (In any case the plural of St Thomas
would be St Thomases, so it would have been St Thomases' Hospital.) Pity
that the current NHS Trust management seems to be illiterate.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

That rule was described as a superstition and a fetish by Fowler in
1926 (or Gowers in 1965), and modern authorities agree with him that
"different to" and "different from" are both acceptable, and have been for
hundreds of years. Or can you quote a contrary view?

Yes: in *my* view "different to" is not acceptable! :-) (Something differs from
something else, not differs to).


--
Peter Beale

In article , Richard J.
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! ;-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Robin Cox wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
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).

Different company *from* ....

That rule was described as a superstition and a fetish by Fowler in 1926
(or Gowers in 1965), and modern authorities agree with him that "different
to" and "different from" are both acceptable, and have been for hundreds of
years. Or can you quote a contrary view?

It's what I was taught at school.

Perhaps my English teacher hadn't read Fowler or Gowers, or perhaps
she disagreed with them both.

Or perhaps she was a superstitious fetishist.


Robin

Peter Beale wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

That rule was described as a superstition and a fetish by Fowler in
1926 (or Gowers in 1965), and modern authorities agree with him that
"different to" and "different from" are both acceptable, and have
been for
hundreds of years. Or can you quote a contrary view?

Yes: in *my* view "different to" is not acceptable! :-) (Something
differs from something else, not differs to).

Ah yes, very logical. So according with* you, my posts have been full with*
mistakes.

* Sorry about the odd English, but I'm following your rules.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article m, (Martin Underwood) wrote:

My New Oxford Dictionary of English (OUP, 1998-2001), page 1632, says
the
following:

's :- suffix denoting possession in singular nouns, also in plural
nouns not
having a final -s: the car's engine | Mrs Ross's son | the children's
teacher

So they actually give an example "Mrs Ross's son" not "Mrs Ross' son",
suggesting that the former is acceptable and/or preferable to the
latter.

If we're going to the OUP Dictionary Dept, in the Oxford Guide to English
Usage things are a bit more complicated: the general rule is as above, but...

French names ending in silent s or x add -'s, which is pronounced as z, e.g.
Dumas's, Crémieux's;

Names ending in -es pronounced iz are treated like plurals and take only
an apostrophe, e.g. Bridges', Moses', Hodges', Riches';

Polysyllables not accented on the last or second last syllable can take the
apostrophe alone, but the form with -'s is equally acceptable, e.g.
Barnabas' or Barnabas's, Nicholas' or Nicholas's;

It is the custom in classical works to use the apostrophe only, irrespective
of pronunciation, for ancient classical names ending in -s, e.g. Demosthenes',
Mars', Venus', Xerxes';

Jesus' "is an acceptable liturgical archaism" (Hart's Rules, p31). But in non-
liturgical use, Jesus's is acceptable.

With the possessive preceding the word sake, be guided by the pronunciation,
e.g. for goodness' sake, but for God's sake, for Charles's sake*.

After -x and -z, use -'s, e.g. Ajax's, Berlioz's music, Leibniz's law, Lenz's law.

* Not mentioned there, but NSOED gives either for conscience sake or for
conscience' sake!

--
Peter Beale