• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 180 0

nothing we can do except raise an eyebrow and make a mental note. Virtually the first things a British newspaper sub-editor learns are that Lloyds TSB (the bank) has no apostrophe, unlike Lloyd’s of London (insurance); Earls Court, Gerrards Cross and St Andrews have no apostrophe (although Earl’s Court tube station seems to have acquired one); HarperCollins has no space; Bowes Lyon has no hyphen; and you have to give initial capitals to the words Biro and Hoover otherwise you automatically get tedious letters from solicitors, reminding you that these are brand names. The satirical magazine Private Eye once printed one of the letters from Biro’s representatives, incidentally, under the memorable heading, “What a pathetic way to make a living”.

St Thomas’ Hospital is thus the self-styled name of the hospital and that’s that. The stadium of Newcastle United FC is, similarly, St James’ Park. In the end, neither example is worth getting worked up about – in fact, on the contrary, once you have taken a few deep breaths, you may find it within you not only to tolerate these exceptions but positively to treasure them and even love them. Personally, I now lose all power of speech if I see University College London ignorantly awarded a comma where none belongs, or E. M. Forster’s title Howards End made to look ordinary by some itchy-fingered proofreader. Meanwhile, The Times Guide to English Style and Usage (1999) sensibly advises its readers not to pin their mental well-being on such matters, putting it beautifully: “Beware of organisations that have apostrophe variations as their house style, eg, St Thomas’ Hospital, where we must respect their whim.”

It is time to confess that I have for many years struggled with one of the lesser rules of the apostrophe. I refer to the “double possessive”, which is evidently a perfectly respectable grammatical construction, but simply jars with me, and perhaps always will. We see it all the time in newspapers:

“Elton John, a friend of the footballer’s, said last night . . . ”

“Elton John, a friend of the couple’s, said last night . . . ”

“Elton John, a friend of the Beckhams’, said last night . . . ”

Well, pass me the oxygen, Elton, and for heaven’s sake, stop banging on about your glitzy mates for a minute while I think. A friend of the footballer’s? Why isn’t it, “a friend of the footballer”? Doesn’t the construction “of the” do away with the need for another possessive? I mean to say, why do those sweet little Beckhams need to possess Elton John twice? Or is that a silly question?

But fight the mounting panic and turn to Robert Burchfield’s third edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage (1998), and what do I find? The double possessive is calmly explained, and I start to peel away the problem. Do I have any objection to the construction “a friend of mine” or “a friend of yours”? Well, no. I would never say “a friend of me” or “a friend of you”. And yes, you would say “a cousin of my mother’s”, “a child of hers”. Well, “a friend of the footballer’s” is the same thing! The only time you drop the double possessive is when, instead of being involved with an animate being, you are “a lover of the British Museum”, because obviously the British Museum does not – and never can – love you back.

We may all be getting a little sick and tired of the apostrophe by now, so I’ll just get a couple more things off my chest.

1 Someone wrote to say that my use of “one’s” was wrong (“a common error”), and that it should be ones. This is such rubbish that I refuse to argue about it. Go and tell Virginia Woolf it should be A Room of Ones Own and see how far you get.

2 To reiterate, if you can replace the word with “it is” or “it has”, then the word is it’s:

It’s a long way to Tipperary.

If you can replace the word with “who is” or “who has”, then the word is who’s:

Who’s that knocking at my door?

If you can replace the word with “they are”, then the word is they’re:

They’re not going to get away with this.

And if you can replace the word with “there is”, the word is there’s:

There’s a