ChatterBank4 mins ago
Apostrophes
21 Answers
I normally have no problem with use of the apostrophe but I am involved in a discussion on another forum and am having a mental block about this:
Taking it for granted that there is more than one magistrate, which is correct, A, B or both ?:
A
Magistrates' Court
B
Magistrates Court
(The argument for B being that there is no possession; the magistrates do not own the court, it is a court FOR magistrates).
Taking it for granted that there is more than one magistrate, which is correct, A, B or both ?:
A
Magistrates' Court
B
Magistrates Court
(The argument for B being that there is no possession; the magistrates do not own the court, it is a court FOR magistrates).
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by SteveD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A tip: think what the singular would be first. If that has an apostrophe then the plural will need one too. I this case the debate first should be whether if there was one magistarte it would be Magistrate court or Magistrate's court. I guess the latter.
I question the possession/for distinction. A toilet for men is not a men toilet- it's a men's toilet. Having said that, a toilet for dogs is a dog toilet! Go with what sounds right for the singular.
I question the possession/for distinction. A toilet for men is not a men toilet- it's a men's toilet. Having said that, a toilet for dogs is a dog toilet! Go with what sounds right for the singular.
Magistrates' court is the correct and standard form. A bench of three lay magistrates constitutes a court: it's their court, the 'magistrates' court'.
Dog toilet has 'dog' used adjectivally. The toilet does not belong to a dog or dogs, so it's not a 'dog's or dogs' toilet.
For the same reason, if 'magistrate' were being used adjectivally the term would be 'magistrate court'
Dog toilet has 'dog' used adjectivally. The toilet does not belong to a dog or dogs, so it's not a 'dog's or dogs' toilet.
For the same reason, if 'magistrate' were being used adjectivally the term would be 'magistrate court'
Thanks for the replies. My gut feeling was that there should be an apostrophe as in "A" in my original post.
Now then, Corbyloon, how about an apostrophe after the final "s" of "Services" in your post??!!
To lighten it all up a bit, on this site there are some great examples of mis-use of the apostrophe:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
Scroll down and click on "Examples Page".
Now then, Corbyloon, how about an apostrophe after the final "s" of "Services" in your post??!!
To lighten it all up a bit, on this site there are some great examples of mis-use of the apostrophe:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
Scroll down and click on "Examples Page".
Firstly, sorry CORBYLOON but there should be no apostrophe in �Services� in your first post. The phrase refers to Court Services of Her Majesty and so �Her Majesty�s Court Services� is correct. Whether it is singular (Service) or plural (Services) makes no difference.
Apostrophe use is quite simple.
Rule number one: Apostrophes pay no part in pluralisation. It may look neater to include one where abbreviations are concerned. For example, when abbreviating pyjamas you might say "a set of PJ�s" but it is incorrect.
Rule number two: Apostrophes are used to denote possession. A simple way to determine where they should be placed is to consider who has possession and put the apostrophe after that.
If a toy belongs to one boy it is the toy belonging to the boy - the boy�s toy. If it is owned by a number of boys it is the toy belonging to the boys - the boys� toy.
In the example of the court, it is the court that is presided over by a number of magistrates and which belongs to Her Majesty. So the apostrophes come after the magistrates and after Her Majesty � Her Majesty�s Magistrates� Court.
It could be argued that "Magistrates" is being used as an adjective to describe the Court (and so no apostrophe would be appropriate) but most common usage seems to dispel this.
Definitely out of order is the �greengrocers� apostrophe� (that is, the apostrophe belonging to all the greengrocers). For example �Cuecumber�s 60p each.
I am the founder (and so far only) member of SASA � the Society for the Abolition of the Spurious Apostrophe. I think I�ll set up a website to attract more members.
Apostrophe use is quite simple.
Rule number one: Apostrophes pay no part in pluralisation. It may look neater to include one where abbreviations are concerned. For example, when abbreviating pyjamas you might say "a set of PJ�s" but it is incorrect.
Rule number two: Apostrophes are used to denote possession. A simple way to determine where they should be placed is to consider who has possession and put the apostrophe after that.
If a toy belongs to one boy it is the toy belonging to the boy - the boy�s toy. If it is owned by a number of boys it is the toy belonging to the boys - the boys� toy.
In the example of the court, it is the court that is presided over by a number of magistrates and which belongs to Her Majesty. So the apostrophes come after the magistrates and after Her Majesty � Her Majesty�s Magistrates� Court.
It could be argued that "Magistrates" is being used as an adjective to describe the Court (and so no apostrophe would be appropriate) but most common usage seems to dispel this.
Definitely out of order is the �greengrocers� apostrophe� (that is, the apostrophe belonging to all the greengrocers). For example �Cuecumber�s 60p each.
I am the founder (and so far only) member of SASA � the Society for the Abolition of the Spurious Apostrophe. I think I�ll set up a website to attract more members.
New Judge, let me come back in defence of Corbyloon. In his first post, he refers to the (web)site of Her Majesty's Court Services ("Her Majesty's Court Services site").
My little query was as to whether there should be an apostrophe after "Services". In my opinion, there should be as there is posession (of the site) by the (plural) Services: "Her Majesty's Court Services' site".
My little query was as to whether there should be an apostrophe after "Services". In my opinion, there should be as there is posession (of the site) by the (plural) Services: "Her Majesty's Court Services' site".
You wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but in using the apostrophe in that way you imply there is only one Court Service belonging to Her Majesty; if there are several Court Services then the site belongs to the plural of Services and the apostrophe goes after the final 's'. As written above:
" toy belongs to one boy it is the toy belonging to the boy - the boy�s toy. If it is owned by a number of boys it is the toy belonging to the boys - the boys� toy.
" toy belongs to one boy it is the toy belonging to the boy - the boy�s toy. If it is owned by a number of boys it is the toy belonging to the boys - the boys� toy.
Generally agree with Corbyloon. It is okay, however, to omit the possesive and refer to the HMRC site or the AnswerBank site so I suggest we can also refer to the Her Majesty's Court Service site. Having said that, it's also okay to use the possesive where it sounds right- in this case Her Majesty�s Court Service�s site sounds right but The Her Majesty's Court Service's site looks and sounds awkward.
Don't we make ourselves look ridiculous getting our knickers in a twist about petty language regulations.
If you don't understand the regulations, you still get the meaning.
Languages evolve over the centuries, but we seem to have set these regulations in stone. Why don't we just modify them to make them simpler to understand?
I don't always admire the yanks, but much of the simplification of the English language in America makes a lot of sense.
If you don't understand the regulations, you still get the meaning.
Languages evolve over the centuries, but we seem to have set these regulations in stone. Why don't we just modify them to make them simpler to understand?
I don't always admire the yanks, but much of the simplification of the English language in America makes a lot of sense.
