It's that Apostrophe again...

**Rik** · 14 July 2012, 09:37 PM

...or the lack of it, this time!

It's funny and sad, when big institutions get it so wrong.

**handrawn** · 14 July 2012, 09:57 PM

Mr Pedantic is pursing his lips and furrowing his brow - I believe he is pondering as to whether the sign means the hospital is a property of the children in some sense or other [apostrophe required] or that it is an establishment that caters for children in the plural [apostrophe not required] - in the latter case the grammatical construct is of course technically incorrect...

**Cloud** · 14 July 2012, 10:10 PM

As an expert in the use of the apostrophe (can you image if there actually was such a person) I would say it is not needed in this case, as mentioned above the hospital does not belong to the children it is for them. I think that there should be a piece of software which looks for the word apostrophe in forums and social networking sites and blocks it's use, I know people who kick up a fuss when it is omitted from text messages, the poor sad people.

**PhilM** · 14 July 2012, 10:12 PM

Ah but, Mr Pedantic, "children" is already plural so "childrens" would be incorrect. (Whoops, perhaps that was what you meant by it being technically incorrect...?)

The correct grammatical construct for this establishment catering for children would be, "The Birmingham Hospital for Children".

(This reminds me of Homer Simpson's wonderfully confused pronunciation of the surname of his neighbours, "The Flandererses".)

**gwpriester** · 14 July 2012, 10:15 PM

Heh heh. Glad I did not venture an opinion.

**handrawn** · 14 July 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by PhilM

Ah but, Mr Pedantic, "children" is already plural so "childrens" would be incorrect.

The correct grammatical construct for this establishment catering for children would be, "The Birmingham Hospital for Children".

Mr Pedantic does indeed agree with you entirely, and begs to point out that is exactly what he meant by incorrect construct in both instances [although perhaps he would say that anyway wouldn't he

]

EDIT:

(Whoops, perhaps that was what you meant by it being technically incorrect...?)

c'est la
acune [no] problem

**Rik** · 14 July 2012, 10:33 PM

Children is the plural of Child.
So, if you're going to have the 's' at the end of Children, then an apostrophe is definitely required.
Then if you don't want it to mean belonging to, then, it would have been better to write: The Birmingham Hospital for Children.

Originally Posted by skech

As an expert in the use of the apostrophe (can you image if there actually was such a person) I would say it is not needed in this case, as mentioned above the hospital does not belong to the children it is for them. I think that there should be a piece of software which looks for the word apostrophe in forums and social networking sites and blocks it's use, I know people who kick up a fuss when it is omitted from text messages, the poor sad people.

May I say that the apostrophe is not used here!

EDIT: Phil says the same as I do!

**Cloud** · 14 July 2012, 10:33 PM

me brain hurt - stop this now you must

**handrawn** · 14 July 2012, 10:37 PM

now you know why its call 'ed 'itting

**Rik** · 14 July 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by handrawn

now you know why its call 'ed 'itting

Steve has the correct use here.

(Never use an apostrophe with possessive pronouns: his, hers, its, theirs, ours, yours, whose. They already show possession so they do not require an apostrophe.)
(The only time an apostrophe is used for it's is when it is a contraction for it is or it has.)