My question is prompted by the Magee-Womens Hospital located in Pittsburgh PA. Why “Magee-Womens?” Is it, as it appears to be, a hospital for women that was named in honor of a person with the surname “Magee?” And if so, shouldn’t it be “Magee Women’s Hospital?”
“Magee-Womens Hospital” seems to suggest that the hospital was named in honor of some person with the compound surname “Magee-Womens” (or perhaps two people: “Magee” and “Womens”); and the fact that the hospital focuses on women is just a peculiar coincidence.
OK? They know me at the NYTimes by now, from the relentlessness with which I email them about their unnecessary hyphens. Happily they usually remove them when they’re pointed out. Still, you wouldn’t think I’d have to do that for them, would you?
And reasons? I think people think apostrophes are fussy, or gay or something. But I can’t reconcile the apostrophobia with the hyphenophilia; color me bewildered.
On a related note, the cleaners up the street uses an apostrophe incorrectly. The apostrophe in question is a needle with thread. And the sign reads,Taylor’s Art Cleaners. Every time I see that sign I want to have my sculpture pollished.
Hmm. As far as I can tell, the apostrophe in your example is correct. Are you referring to the Taylor-v-tailor incongruity? I’d assume that’s a pun rather than a misspelling.
Regarding the OP, my assumption is that the hyphen reflects a historical merger of two hospitals, Magee and Womens. There are other hospitals with a similar name construction. Cedars-Sinai is one of the more famous. Its history is discussed here: A Nonprofit Hospital in Los Angeles | Cedars-Sinai
That’s true, but it’s also not necessary to use apostrophes is certain situations with group plurals. I think that applies here. I wish I remembered the rule. One of my editors explained it to me recently, but it didn’t stick.
If you were wondering, it’s because women is already plural and plural nouns take the usual ‘s possessive rather than the s’ possessive. So it’s women’s, children’s, cattle’s, etc., and not womens’, childrens’, or cattles’. Does that make sense?
Possessives of that small handful of English nouns not ending in -s (or -x for a few borrowings from French) are formed as if the singular, with -'s. Women’s, men’s, children’s, oxen’s, sheep’s, cattle’s…. I have no clue what the possessive of chateaux ought to be; I suspect the proper course is to shoot the would-be user of the term.