tubechallenge.com

I've always thought "Barons Court" was the beginning of a sentence. Something like "Barons Court Young Ladies Every Thursday Night in Hammersmith".

I was away from school the day we did apostrophes (as English wasn't taught, more picked up at my primary) so this topic means absolutely nothing to me!

Same goes for Haydons Road.

Soup Dragon wrote:Wow a three year BUMP I ain't never seen that before
Is there such a word as ain't and if so is the apostrophe in the right place?

It must be a record.

The apostrophes on the tube are inconsistent and, in some cases, simply wrong. Using Cyril Harris's book "What's in a name?" we can get some indication of whether the apostrophe is correct by looking at the origin of the place name.

So there now follows "Tubeguru's Review of the usage of the Apostrophe in LU Placenames":

Barons Court - this has nothing to do with the law (unlike nearby Earl's Court). It was named after an estate that extends from the District Line to Perham Road. "The name was fabricated, perhaps in allusion to the title of 'Court Baron' then held by the Lord of the Manor or because Earl's Court was the name of a nearby district".

Tubeguru's verdict: if they modelled the name on Earl's Court, then the name should contain an apostrophe, especially if the court in question owes its possession to a Baron. This is simply LU omitting the apostrophe because they probably always have done.

Bounds Green - some people think this is incorrect and should contain an apostrophe. The 'Bounds' in question are the families of John le Bonde and Walter le Bounde, being recorded in 1365 as le Boundes. This is confusing, as you would imagine that as both names do not have an 's' on the end, the apostrophe should be there to denote ownership of the Green. However, as le Boundes is incorrect French anyway (it should be les Boundes if they're on about two families) then it's obviously just a corruption of poor grammar anyway.

Tubeguru's verdict: inconclusive - poor translation by all concerned, leave it as it is!

Canons Park - Six acres of this area were granted to the Prior of the St Augustine canons of St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield in 1331 and were recorded as 'Canons' during the 16th century. Once again, as the original English did not contain an apostrophe. No doubt the rules we have on such things didn't exist back then.

Tubeguru's verdict: technically, as the Park belongs to multiple canons, it should really be Canons' Park, the apostrophe coming after the 's' to show ownership by multiple entities. Another case of LU leaving something as they found it. Shoddy.

Colliers Wood - takes its name from the 'colliers' or charcoal burners who worked in the area in the 16th century.

Tubeguru's verdict: should be Colliers' Wood under modern apostrophe rules. Once again, LU leave it as they find it.

Earl's Court - You'd think this one was one they DID get right, but it depends if the Court belonged to one or more earls. However, I do know that the Manor of Kensington was granted to the family of the Earl of Oxford, hence Earl's Court (A court of one earl).

Tubeguru's verdict: this one is fine.

Gants Hill - An innocuous inclusion but one which merits attention because of the origin of the name in the first place. It is suspected that the naming is down to Richard le Gant (c 1291). The station was to be called Ilford North (nice) but LU chose Gants Hill. Therefore, they would simply looked at the map and seen how it was spelt on there. Didn't stop anyone getting it wrong though.

Tubeguru's verdict: I'm being picky again, but this should really be Gant's Hill (or even Gants' Hill) if it is referring to a person or his family. We can't blame LU for all of these grammatical errors though. After all, they probably took the names from how they are spelt locally and on maps, most of which have become corrupted down the ages anyway.

Golders Green - Another corruption of a suspected link with an old name. John Godyer and John le Godere have been put forward as candidates, and if that's the case, an apostrophe should be in use.

Tubeguru's verdict: I'd like to say that this should be Golder's Green, but as with most of these as the apostrophe was never used from the start it's hard to criticise LU for going with the existing name. But if we're being anal, it should have an apostrophe anyway.

King's Cross St Pancras - some people claim King's should not have an apostrophe. This is rubbish, as the old crossroads here had a statue of George IV in the middle of it, hence the name King's Cross(roads).

Tubeguru's verdict: this is correct, although I do have issues with running the names of two stations into one with no dividing punctuation. No wonder the bloody tourists are confused.

Parsons Green - named after an area around an old parsonage. As a result this should have had an apostrophe from the very start.

Tubeguru's verdict: 100% wrong. Needs one of those upside-down comma things in it.

Queen's Park - A park named after Queen Victoria.

Tubeguru's verdict: Any fule no this is right, innit?

Rayners Lane - named after a farmer called Daniel Rayner who owned a farm (really?) on the land just as the Met line was taking off in the area. As such, the lane "belongs" to him, and you know what that means.

Tubeguru's verdict: I doubt very much that the name 'Rayners Lane' existed before the Met line arrived, and so this is LU's worst example of missing an apostrophe off. No doubt they felt they had to be consistent with existing apostrophe-laden names (which were, er all inconsistent anyway). Sorry LU - go to the bottom of the class. Queen's Park, but not Rayner's Lane?

Regent's Park - it's getting silly now. Queen Vic and the Prince Regent get an apostrophe, but poor old Farmer Giles doesn't?

Tubeguru's verdict: correct, but inconsistent

St. James's Park - A park named after St. James. No doubt local maps showed an apostrophe when the line was built, and so LU followed suit and kept it in.

Tubeguru's verdict: nothing dodgy here guv. This one's right.

St. John's Wood - A wood named after St. John by any chance?

Tubeguru's verdict: what happened? They're getting them all right now!

St. Paul's - you all know what this is named after.

Tubeguru's verdict: five in a row. Who can stop the mighty LU Apostrophe Department?

Shepherd's Bush - there is uncertainty about the origin of the name of this area of London. Some say it is named after a group of shepherds (plural, note) who used it as a meadow. Some say it's named after a person. In 1635 it was recorded as Sheppards Bush Green (apostrophes hadn't been discovered back then). All modern maps show an apostrophe in the placename and so LU's version is accurate with that at least.

Tubeguru's verdict: if the map says Shepherd's Bush then that's what it is and this one is correct.

So overall, it's just way too inconsistent. Obviously LU must have sat down and discussed whether they would put apostrophes in their names, and these may have changed down the years. If anyone has a copy of "Mr Beck's Underground Map" (Ken Garland) and "Underground Maps After Beck" (Max Roberts), it may be worth looking back over them to see if the positioning of apostrophes has changed down the years.

I do have copies of both books, but I've got enough of a life to leave that to some other saddo. Carry on.

And for those of you who missed school, here is how it all works.

Apostrophes are used for TWO purposes only in the English language - to denote ommited letters and to show "ownership". Having said that, they are also used as quotation marks in place of "inverted commas" but we won't go into that here.

Let's do the first one first. It's quite simple.

It is = it's
There is = there's
He is = he's
O'Clock = of the clock

It's the second use of apostrophes that confuses people, so I'm here to help all you thickos who didn't pay attention in school and got an E in English.

If a single person or entity owns something then an apostrophe is inserted between their name and the s that comes after it:

Jane's ball (a ball belonging to Jane)
The cat's ball (a ball belonging to ONE cat)
Earl's Court (a court belonging to ONE earl)

If the item is owned by more than one person or entity then the apostrophe goes AFTER the s:

Earls' Court (a court belonging to more than one earl)
The girls' ball (a ball belonging to more than one girl)
The girl's balls (multiple balls belonging to more than one girl - do not put an apostrophe on the plural of ball!)
Three kings' crowns (an unspecified number of crowns belonging to three kings)
Three kings' chairs' cushions (an unspecified number of cushions belonging to an unspecified number of chairs belonging to three kings)
My sister's friends' ball (a ball belonging to multiple friends of my ONE sister)

The problem comes with plural words like men, women and children. All you need to do is put the apostrophe in the same place you would for a single person owning the item:

The children's balls (multiple balls belonging to multiple children)
The women's balls (is this anatomically possible?)
The men's balls (better)

The grey area comes when abbreviations are introduced.

DVD's, CD's, MP3's - are these correct? Or should it be DVDs, CDs, MP3s?

Well, technically we haven't omitted any letters and the DVD's (DVDs?) aren't being shown as belonging to anyone. So the answer should be NO. However, as more and more people are now using DVD's, CD's, MP3's etc. in writing, the rules are being relaxed when it comes to abbreviations. People see the need to insert one because their minds can't get used to seeing a capital letter followed by a small letter without shoving something in there.

And while I'm at it, can you all tell your moronic intenet friends about the use of the following words:

There
Their
They're
You're
Your

Thanks.

It is = it's

Quite so, and not to be confused with the possessive pronoun its (no apostrophe), meaning "belonging to it".

Yes, I forgot to mention the difference between it's and its, although you should all know it.

tubeguru wrote:DVD's, CD's, MP3's - are these correct? Or should it be DVDs, CDs, MP3s?

Well, technically we haven't omitted any letters and the DVD's (DVDs?) aren't being shown as belonging to anyone. So the answer should be NO. However, as more and more people are now using DVD's, CD's, MP3's etc. in writing, the rules are being relaxed when it comes to abbreviations. People see the need to insert one because their minds can't get used to seeing a capital letter followed by a small letter without shoving something in there.

Lynne Truss' book Eats, Shoots and Leaves mentions the use of apostrophes in abbreviations, unfortunately I don't have it to hand but I'm sure it said that the use was correct (somehow).

tubeguru wrote:And while I'm at it, can you all tell your moronic intenet friends about the use of the following words:

Deliberately ironic, yes?

That would be a typo.

tubeguru wrote:I do have copies of both books, but I've got enough of a life to leave that to some other saddo. Carry on.

I am tempted to point out the irony in that too, but you'd probably just say that I'm not getting your sense of humour again, so I'll assume you meant that to be humorous...

PS: How come "humour" doesn't become "humourous"?

Oh i'm so confused, I never was much good at english!

scrxisi wrote:

Root wrote:PS: How come "humour" doesn't become "humourous"?

I thought it did!

The Chambers dictionary lists "humour", with "humorous" as an extension. So in this case, the u is dropped. Glamour works the same way with glamorous.

The inference is that the word is too cumbersome with an extra u in it. Humourous and glamourous just look wrong to the eye.

If we drop the first U from "humourous" because it is too cumbersome, then we should drop the U from plain old "humour" as well. Although I normally defend English English vs American English, in this case they've removed a completely unnecessary letter, thereby streamlining the word and making things easier for everyone.

Root wrote: Although I normally defend English English vs American English, in this case they've removed a completely unnecessary letter

I've always associated the letter W with being American and unnecessary myself.

Americans - the only country who can translate English into English and still manage to get it wrong.