Apostrophes

[SteveD]

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).

[factor-fiction]

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.

[yogasun]

Crikey Steve D that's a difficult one isn't it?
I think I'd opt for B though I certainly take factor's point

[geo0939]

I Googled and found that magistrates' came up most often. As they say ' you pays your money and you takes your pick'.

[geo0939]

PS: Same results for Visitors' lounge.

[THECORBYLOON]

On Her Majesty's Court Services site, it calls them Magistrates' Courts.

[fredpuli47]

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'

[SteveD]

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".

[THECORBYLOON]

It should be Her Majesty's Court Service's etc but at the time I couldn't mind if it was Service or Services and couldn't be bothered to check to see where the apostrophe should go.

There is a shortage of apostrophes by the way and I think wir quota has been used up in this thread as it is.

[New Judge]

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.

[Kanewood]

A man (or woman) after my own heart!

By the way - did you mean to write Cuecumbers? or should that be (sic) after it?

[SteveD]

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".

[New Judge]

Absolutely right, SteveD.

Thanks for pointing this out and humblest apologies to CorbyLoon.

I must be getting old!

[BigMac]

New Judge, ref: your rule number 2...

The apostrophe should never be used when something belongs to 'it'...

[THECORBYLOON]

Rule number two: Apostrophes are used to denote possession

The site belongs to an agency of the Ministry of Justice, I could refer to the agency�s site or the HMRC�s site, so why am I incorrect to refer to Her Majesty�s Court Service�s site?

[BigMac]

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.

[THECORBYLOON]

The name of the agency is Her Majesty's Court Service so there is only one Court Service.

[factor-fiction]

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.

[SteveD]

I was assuming that there were several Court Services (and therefore, the apostrophe should go after the final "s").

As it appears that there is only one Service, if we go back to Corbyloon's second post, he is right. In his first post, he should have written "her Majesty's Court Service's site".

[New Judge]

Just to tidy up on BigMac's point:

Yes BigMac, you are quite right - "its" is a possessive adjective (similar to "his" or her") and is a word in its own right. No apostrophe is necessary.

[Panic Button]

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.