| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Signs at St. James' Park
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. -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Signs at St. James' Park
In message , Joe
writes 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. That's nothing.... We have Upminister Bridge and Upminster on the same sign. -- Kat The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status, or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we all believe that we are above-average drivers. |
Signs at St. James' Park
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. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
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. St. James' Park is the correct way to show it. St James's Park is incorrect. Its like; I'm going to Chris' House, not I'm going to Chris's house -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Signs at St. James' Park
Joe wrote:
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. St. James' Park is the correct way to show it. St James's Park is incorrect. Its like; I'm going to Chris' House, not I'm going to Chris's house But surely you *say* "Chris's house", in which case why not spell it that way? Although there are some exceptions, it's normal to use 's after singular names ending in s. Before you try to lay down the law on the use of apostrophes, you'd better learn when to put one in "it's". -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
St. James' Park is the correct way to show it. St James's Park is
incorrect. Its like; I'm going to Chris' House, not I'm going to Chris's house I think this is an area that can cause much debate. A quick internet search suggests a consensus for using an apostrophe and an s unless the word sounds ugly with it and that is certainly how I use it. I would certainly say Chris's house and I would generally say St James's 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. However regardless of any of that St James's Park is the accepted correct name for the park. On the other hand it seems Newcastle play at St James' Park and Exeter City at either St James Park or St James' Park depending on if you read The Guardian or The Times. |
Signs at St. James' Park
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". Marc. |
Signs at St. James' Park
Mait001 wrote:
I agree that "St. James' " or "St. James's" is a matter of debate. It is considered better practice to omit the additional "s", By whom? 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". The Queen doesn't agree with you. The Court Circulars refer to "the Court of St James's". Example at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...883468,00.html -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:16:59 -0000, "Joe"
wrote: 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. St. James' Park is the correct way to show it. St James's Park is incorrect. Its like; I'm going to Chris' House, not I'm going to Chris's house A common misconception. The "s" after the apostorphe is only omitted if the word is a plural, rather than a singular, noun. E.g. "boys' games" compared to "Burns's poems." -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
Signs at St. James' Park
I agree that "St. James' " or "St. James's" is a matter of debate. It
is considered better practice to omit the additional "s", By whom? I always thought that they were to show posession and to show missing letters in words. Anyone who watched 'Grumpy Old Men' a few weeks ago will know that Barons Court doesn't belong to a Baron, yet Earl's Court belongs to an Earl. Does St James'/St James's/St James/St. James Park belong to St James? -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out the Award Winning Railways Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Signs at St. James' Park
Joe wrote:
I agree that "St. James' " or "St. James's" is a matter of debate. It is considered better practice to omit the additional "s", By whom? I always thought that they were to show posession and to show missing letters in words. Anyone who watched 'Grumpy Old Men' a few weeks ago will know that Barons Court doesn't belong to a Baron, yet Earl's Court belongs to an Earl. I missed that programme, but always wondered why the apostrophe was in one but not the other. Why is Barons Court so named? (Oh, and just to confuse matters, the name on the street signs nearby is "Baron's Court Road"!) Does St James'/St James's/St James/St. James Park belong to St James? I think you'll find that St James's Park is named after St James's Palace, which was built by Henry VIII on the site of the Hospital of St James. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
Anyone who watched 'Grumpy Old Men' a few weeks ago will know that Barons
Court doesn't belong to a Baron, yet Earl's Court belongs to an Earl. I don't remember the resolution. I just remember Tony Hawks had written to Ken Livingstone asking why one had the apostrophe and the other didn't and being impressed that the reply he got was deliberately stuffed full of misused apostrophes. |
Signs at St. James' Park
I missed that programme, but always wondered why the apostrophe was in one
but not the other. Why is Barons Court so named? (Oh, and just to confuse matters, the name on the street signs nearby is "Baron's Court Road"!) Well ignoring whether or not it ought to have an apostrophe, I just had a look around and it seems the suggestion was that it was an invented name for something like a housing development. Similarly you get Kingsbury which is an old name, say Saxon or something like that, and Queensbury which is from modern times. |
Signs at St. James' Park
"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. -- Terry Harper http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Signs at St. James' Park
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. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
Lew 1 (from the UK) wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:16:58 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:16:59 -0000, "Joe" wrote: 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. St. James' Park is the correct way to show it. St James's Park is incorrect. Its like; I'm going to Chris' House, not I'm going to Chris's house A common misconception. The "s" after the apostorphe is only omitted if the word is a plural, rather than a singular, noun. E.g. "boys' games" compared to "Burns's poems." Hmm... I was most definitely taught in school that my name would be " Lewis' " and not " Lewis's " - and that was only 10 or so years ago. 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). Regardless of that, Lewis's looks ugly and tends to make people mispronounce my name. I solve the situation by simply having " Lew's " OK if you don't mind being named after toilets! :-) -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Signs at St. James' Park
|
Signs at St. James' Park
"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* .... Robin |
Signs at St. James' Park
"Lew 1 (from the UK)" wrote in message
... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:16:58 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:16:59 -0000, "Joe" wrote: 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. St. James' Park is the correct way to show it. St James's Park is incorrect. Its like; I'm going to Chris' House, not I'm going to Chris's house A common misconception. The "s" after the apostorphe is only omitted if the word is a plural, rather than a singular, noun. E.g. "boys' games" compared to "Burns's poems." Hmm... I was most definitely taught in school that my name would be " Lewis' " and not " Lewis's " - and that was only 10 or so years ago. Regardless of that, Lewis's looks ugly and tends to make people mispronounce my name. I solve the situation by simply having " Lew's " But if "Lewis'" was pronounced as spelled (and not as Lewis's) then people would think that your name was Lewi! |
Signs at St. James' Park
|
Signs at St. James' Park
"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"! |
Signs at St. James' Park
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. |
Signs at St. James' Park
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) |
Signs at St. James' Park
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) |
Signs at St. James' Park
|
Signs at St. James' Park
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 |
Signs at St. James' Park
"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 |
Signs at St. James' Park
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) |
Possessive apostrophes (was Signs at St. James' Park)
|
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
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. You can see the different styles of apostrophe he Original Johnston Underground typeface: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark...frankpick.html (a page that curiously makes no mention of Edward Johnston!) New Johnston typeface is on page 7 of this 21-page document: http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...icElements.pdf (Requires Acrobat Reader; zoom in to view. The apostrophe is not shown, but it's the same shape as a comma or one of the double quotes.) -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
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 11:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk