wrote:

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)

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

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...41-560,00.html and scroll
down to 'apostrophes') where the hospital's house style takes
precedence over the newspaper's

Martin

Richard J. wrote:
wrote:

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.

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

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...41-560,00.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.

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

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...41-560,00.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.

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.

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".

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

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

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...41-560,00.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.

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.

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".

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
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!

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

Marc.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 Richard J. wrote:

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.
--
Thoss

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, wrote:

Richard J. wrote:
wrote:

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 ...

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

--
Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's
historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith

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

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
. @gmail.com

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

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
. @gmail.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!

Marc.