-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation Thread [Merged]
- Thread starter Freezer
- Start date
As i understand the way common usage works, St Pauls Cathedral is Ok because it has always been labelled that way. So if the title, signs, letterhead and so on have always excluded the apostrophe it is left this way as it has become common usage. Also correct is St Pauls.
This is very common with place names. For example, Lavers Hill.
if you check out a map or a street directory you will see stacks of examples: rivers, capes, beaches, mountains, towns, buildings and so on.
Interestingly there is a church somewhere in America called St Pauls and it is a church of German origin and the German language doesn't have an apostrophe.
This is very common with place names. For example, Lavers Hill.
if you check out a map or a street directory you will see stacks of examples: rivers, capes, beaches, mountains, towns, buildings and so on.
Interestingly there is a church somewhere in America called St Pauls and it is a church of German origin and the German language doesn't have an apostrophe.
Massive Tiger said:
As far as I'm aware Lavers Hill is named Lavers Hill not Laver's Hill and St Paul's cathedral is named St Paul's Cathedral not St Pauls Cathedral. I know how common usage may apply to punctuation or grammar but not how it applies to changing common nouns. I still don't think you've explained that.
Yes, Lavers Hill is Lavers Hill. Technically it should be Laver's Hill named after whoever Laver was.
But because it has always been written that way it stays that way due to common usage.
But because it has always been written that way it stays that way due to common usage.
Gonna start a list:
Aireys Inlet
Arthurs Seat
Halls Gap
Lavers Hill
Lakes Entrance
Skenes Crrek
Wilsons Promontory
Aireys Inlet
Arthurs Seat
Halls Gap
Lavers Hill
Lakes Entrance
Skenes Crrek
Wilsons Promontory
Massive Tiger said:
How does that technicality apply to St Paul's Cathedral and what's on their letterheads? I still don't see how St Pauls Cathedral is acceptable through common usage. I'm not sure if it even commonly used. It's not only the proper name of the building, it is also technically correct.
I still don't understand how common usage makes it acceptable to change proper nouns. If my registered name was Rosy's then it wouldn't be correct to put my name as Rosys on official forms. Whether it's correct punctuation wise would be irrelevant.
Massive Tiger said:
They are the proper names not common usage names. I am still not convinced it's correct to change them. Certain assumptions would need to be made to apply punctuation technicalities. There would be different connotations, for example, for Lake's Entrance, Lakes' Entrance or Lakes Entrance. The way I see it is the proper name is Lakes Entrance and it would be incorrect to use an apostrophe.
I think we agree on the place names, Rosy. In theory they are incorrect but it's ok to use them I'm that form as they have become common usage. In fact, it's more than ok, they have become correct.
Massive Tiger said:
I don't think we agree. How do we know they are incorrect? Do we rely on folklore to guess when and where an apostrophe is appropriate. I still don't see how common usage means it's ok to change a proper noun and I don't see the removal of the apostrophe in St Paul's Cathedral is correct, especially when on the basis of your claims, it makes it technically incorrect into the bargain.
You said it would be correct because they use it on their letterheads etc. Going by their website it seems they use St Paul's Cathedral. I don't think spelling, grammar or punctuation technicalities apply. Otherwise it would be St. Paul's Cathedral and that isn't the title of St Paul's Cathedral.
You've given no evidence St Pauls Cathedral is commonly, or officially, used. I think it was as much of an error in the example 23 goals highlighted as the incorrect "there" was.
I'll get to the St Paul thing soon.
re. the other ones, the point is that they are technically incorrect according to the rules of punctuation.
Laver's Hill is the hill belonging to Laver, Lake's Entrance is the entrance to the lake and so on.
That would be the way it should be.
However because they have never been correctly written like that and because they have therefore always been incorrect, the incorrect usage has become the common usage, therefore the common usage is right and acceptable.
I feel that I am not making myself completely clear here. Does that last bit make sense?
re. the other ones, the point is that they are technically incorrect according to the rules of punctuation.
Laver's Hill is the hill belonging to Laver, Lake's Entrance is the entrance to the lake and so on.
That would be the way it should be.
However because they have never been correctly written like that and because they have therefore always been incorrect, the incorrect usage has become the common usage, therefore the common usage is right and acceptable.
I feel that I am not making myself completely clear here. Does that last bit make sense?
Massive Tiger said:
I think you're incorrect in both instances. If an apostrophe was to be used in both of your examples in Lavers and Lakes they should indicate they are plural. Lavers' and Lakes' not Laver's and Lake's as you suggest. There were 2 Laver brothers and there are numerous lakes. It's why I don't think the technical rules you refer to apply to proper names.
The last bit makes sense but I don't think that's what you're arguing in relation to St Paul's Cathedral when, in fact, it hasn't always been written incorrectly to become the common usage. It is already named correctly.
It doesn't matter whether they are place names or not. The apostrophe in these cases is used to show possession. So if there was one Laver or numerous Lavers it wouldn't matter. It would go before the s or after the s accordingly.
But, and this is the thing, when they first wrote it down on whatever document that was, they got it technically wrong. However, because it was official, it stayed that way, despite being technically wrong.
(shifting topic slightly, this has happened a lot in history. The name of a migrant for example might have been written down incorrectly at immigration and it would have stayed that way unless officially changed. Also, many Australian explorers wrote down plant, place and peoples' names incorrectly as the English language and the local language weren't compatible. So something which sounded something like 'kangaroo' became what we know as 'kangaroo' today. And in a slight misunderstanding the local word around Sydney for 'arse' was 'boong' and that got misappropriated too. It's ironic that the locals referred to the English as boongs, or arses, but in time the word got turned around to term we have to)day.
Now with St Paul's Cathedral; If you google churches and parks and buildings you will find that sometimes they show the possessive apostrophe and sometimes they don't. It doesn't matter because it has become common usage and it won't change and everyone knows what it means.
But, and this is the thing, when they first wrote it down on whatever document that was, they got it technically wrong. However, because it was official, it stayed that way, despite being technically wrong.
(shifting topic slightly, this has happened a lot in history. The name of a migrant for example might have been written down incorrectly at immigration and it would have stayed that way unless officially changed. Also, many Australian explorers wrote down plant, place and peoples' names incorrectly as the English language and the local language weren't compatible. So something which sounded something like 'kangaroo' became what we know as 'kangaroo' today. And in a slight misunderstanding the local word around Sydney for 'arse' was 'boong' and that got misappropriated too. It's ironic that the locals referred to the English as boongs, or arses, but in time the word got turned around to term we have to)day.
Now with St Paul's Cathedral; If you google churches and parks and buildings you will find that sometimes they show the possessive apostrophe and sometimes they don't. It doesn't matter because it has become common usage and it won't change and everyone knows what it means.
Massive Tiger said:
You were still incorrect with having the apostrophe before the s in both Lavers and Lakes. How are people meant to know these things? Surely it's not correct to take a wild guess and just chuck an apostrophe in anywhere. An apostrophe actually included in a proper name gives a better indication. I reckon if it's official use it.
How do the lakes possess the entrance? How do you know the title doesn't just indicate an entrance to the lakes, with lakes being plural rather than possessive?
Yep you can google things to get all the examples you like. It doesn't mean it's correct to remove the apostrophe in a proper name. I think your example of letter heads etc would be more appropriate guide and as far as I can tell they don't refer to the building as St Pauls Cathedral.
one thing at a time.
1. Lakes Entrance - Victorian town
The entrance is part of, or belongs to the lake.
So it is Lake's Entrance.
It's the same as the cat's tail or the door's handle or the creek's mouth.
However, due to common usage it has become Lakes Entrance.
2. I am not disagreeing or agreeing with what it should be. I am just explaining how it is.
And don't worry about googling if you don't want to. I was just saying you could if you were interested. I was just trying to help. I could have said look at a map.
It's an interesting topic. And I enjoy the discussion.
1. Lakes Entrance - Victorian town
The entrance is part of, or belongs to the lake.
So it is Lake's Entrance.
It's the same as the cat's tail or the door's handle or the creek's mouth.
However, due to common usage it has become Lakes Entrance.
2. I am not disagreeing or agreeing with what it should be. I am just explaining how it is.
And don't worry about googling if you don't want to. I was just saying you could if you were interested. I was just trying to help. I could have said look at a map.
It's an interesting topic. And I enjoy the discussion.
Massive Tiger said:
Isn't it sans apostrophe because it's the entrance to the Gippsland Lakes (plural)?
The plurality is not relevant in this case. It's simply been written like that for generations and that's how it stays.
