[QUOTE=panache45]
And don’t get me started on “Two Brother’s Beauty Supplies.”
[/QUOTE]
:smack:
I suspect I have you beat, though: A fruit-and-vegetable stand in my old home town, now defunct, for years claimed that they had
Fresh “Tomatoe’s”
I suspect that goes for a grammatical solecism hat trick. 
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The possessive of “chateaux” is “chateaux’s,” but in American English you probably want to use “chateaus’.”
This Wikipedia article is not very good, but is the only thing I could find online:
[QUOTE=panache45]
And what is wrong with Taylor’s?
[/QUOTE]
Assuming his name is Taylor Art, then it should be Taylor Art’s Cleaners, if it’s a partnership, it should be Taylor-Art Cleaners. In other words, the possessive is on the wrong name.
I read it as “Art of the Tailor” cleaners, using an archaic alternate spelling of “tailor.”
“Women’s” should have an apostrophe.
[QUOTE=TWDuke]
I read it as “Art of the Tailor” cleaners, using an archaic alternate spelling of “tailor.”
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I thought as well. Or “the art of a man named Taylor.”
“I got me some womens” is acceptable usage, if you are an old-time blues singer.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I’ll probably have to wait for work tomorrow to clarify what I was told. Here’s hoping I wasn’t steered wrong.
[/QUOTE]
This morning he doesn’t remember the conversation at all, even though we did have it - and had it again the next day. Oh well. Lacking any independent confirmation of whatever I was told, I withdraw my comment.
[QUOTE=TWDuke]
“Women’s” should have an apostrophe.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that a tautology? Doesn’t “women’s” have to have an apostrophe? If it didn’t, it would be “womens.”
[QUOTE=Marley23]
This morning he doesn’t remember the conversation at all, even though we did have it - and had it again the next day. Oh well. Lacking any independent confirmation of whatever I was told, I withdraw my comment.
[/QUOTE]
He was probably talking about attributive uses, like “teachers college” or “writers guild.” Note that in both those cases, there is a valid plural. “Womens hospital” doesn’t work because “womens” isn’t a valid plural.
I seem to remember that apostrophes in signs got tangled up in the huffy “signs must be in French” issue in Quebéc. Some franchise stores had to paint over the apostrophe on their signs in order to be legal.
Now that I looked up Magee-Womens Hospital, though, I see it’s in Pittsburgh, PA, not near the border, and the website has the same lack of an apostrophe. I offer no excuse for them.
“Wimmens! Ya can’t live with 'em, and ya can’t put 'em all in a pickup truck.”
[QUOTE=AskNott]
I seem to remember that apostrophes in signs got tangled up in the huffy “signs must be in French” issue in Quebéc.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: Signs must be predominantly in French. You can have English lettering, but the French lettering has to be more prominent.
Although a look at Wikipedia shows that the law originally banned all English signs.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Isn’t that a tautology? Doesn’t “women’s” have to have an apostrophe? If it didn’t, it would be “womens.”
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t it be a tautology only if every occurrence of an apostrophe were correct?
Anyway, the plural possessive of “woman” is “women’s” but the, ahem, correct way of spelling the hospital’s name is indeed “Magee-Womens Hospital,” per the UPMC Branding Guide (PDF).
It’s just as well I’m not a copy editor, because I would be tempted to use “Magee-Womens [sic] Hospital” on every reference.
[QUOTE=TWDuke]
Wouldn’t it be a tautology only if every occurrence of an apostrophe were correct?
[/QUOTE]
It was just a dumb joke playing off you writing, “‘Women’s’ should have an apostrophe”; instead of writing, “The possessive of ‘women’ should have an apostrophe (followed by an ‘s’).”
“Women’s” has to have have an apostrophe. After all, it is right there.
In phrases like “womens clothing” etc., some style guides (e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., p. 201) accept the apostrophe-less version on the grounds that the first noun is functioning as an ‘attributive’ rather than a true possessive – putting it in the same category, for example, as the “accounts” of “accounts manager.”
There are some other cases of “validly missing apostrophes” in placenames in which someone who was initially considered to have discovered or owned the site has been forgotten by the general public, leaving the name as a kind of fossil – Pikes Peak, for example.
[QUOTE=Epiplexed]
There are some other cases of “validly missing apostrophes” in placenames in which someone who was initially considered to have discovered or owned the site has been forgotten by the general public, leaving the name as a kind of fossil – Pikes Peak, for example.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not that there was a judgment made that the name no longer referred to the antecedent, I believe, but that the federal government decided it wanted to use apostrophes for other purposes and didn’t want them making official maps confusing when they were used in place names. Of course, that still doesn’t make it “wrong” to call it Pike’s Peak.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
It was just a dumb joke playing off you writing, “‘Women’s’ should have an apostrophe”; instead of writing, “The possessive of ‘women’ should have an apostrophe (followed by an ‘s’).”
“Women’s” has to have have an apostrophe. After all, it is right there.
[/QUOTE]
But “that dog has a severed human hand in its mouth” is not logically equivalent to “that dog should have a severed human hand in its mouth,” is it?
[QUOTE=Epiplexed]
In phrases like “womens clothing” etc., some style guides (e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., p. 201) accept the apostrophe-less version on the grounds that the first noun is functioning as an ‘attributive’ rather than a true possessive – putting it in the same category, for example, as the “accounts” of “accounts manager.”
[/QUOTE]
I hate Chicago. “Accounts” is a legitimate plural noun; “womens” is not.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The only example I can think of is “Beatles songs,” where “Beatles” functions adjectivally, not as a possessive. (cf. Dickens novels, which cf. Hemingway novels)
Other than that, I got nothin’.
Still, I’d rather buy those than “fresh” Tomatoe’s
I’m just sayin’…
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Shouldn’t it be Womens’ ?
[/QUOTE]
because the plural of woman is irregular (i.e. not womans) it obtains 's to indicate possessiveness. Same goes for “the mice’s den”. Had woman been a regular noun, its plural possessive would have been ‘Womans’. I started a thread to sort out this and other questions about a week ago but now I cannot seem to find it…
About this “cleaner” that was mentioned earlier, shouldn’t it be cleaner’s? I always thought it was a short-hand for ‘the cleaner’s place’ or something. And is short-hand needlessly hyphenated? Educate me.
[QUOTE=Švejk]
About this “cleaner” that was mentioned earlier, shouldn’t it be cleaner’s? I always thought it was a short-hand for ‘the cleaner’s place’ or something. And is short-hand needlessly hyphenated? Educate me.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is needlessly hyphenated. Shorthand is correct, per Webster’s. What is likely confusing you is that two-word combinations (such as two-word previously) that are used to modify a noun (combinations) should be hyphenated. Also, the term short-handed would be hyphenated for this very same reason. In “The store was short-handed,” store is the noun being modified by short-handed.