English Grammar Question

I would prefer "the reputation of St. Vincent's." "St. Vincent's" is not wrong, but I would try to avoid that construction (as with "Lloyd's"), because of the possible confusion.

I'd also prefer "apostrophized," but that's another matter.

CK

What chriskean said.

LOL, since I have never seen either word, "apostrophied" or "apostrophized", I just went with what 889, #8, posted. If I were editing something using that word (or any word I have never seen or heard before), I would go to my Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (on my hard disk) and check like I just did. chriskean1 and shilgia are correct, the word according to the dictionary is "aprostrophized".

IF the extract from the article 889 posted was a stand-alone sentence, I would ALMOST completely agree with chriskean1 and shilgia that it should be "… the reputation of St. Vincent's…" BUT as a stand-alone sentence it would be incorrect to just imply "Hospital". It would need to have the full name "St. Vincent's Hospital", so that the second usage could imply "Hospital" with no confusion.

As an extract of an article where the "Hospital" was fully named in either the headline or in the first part of the article—as 889 did in the post—I think that the sentence as written is completey correct and would not cause any confusion.

Umm, there is a word "apostrophize" but as chriskean knows, it doesn't mean to insert an apostrophe.

On the "St. Vincent's" question I agree with chris and shilgia.

Well, let's see what the experts have to say:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/PossessivesandAttributives/PossessivesandAttributives07.html

http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=841359&CFID=110701493&CFTOKEN=56625243

You mean we're not the experts?

VinnyD, #13, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The links in 889's post #14 just don't address the problem in #8, although far back in the distant past both Macy's and Sotheby's had more to their names than just that, but as is normal in English evolution, the shortened version became the only version, yet retained the now not-truly-applicable possessive apostrophe.

I would GUESS that Macy's was something like Macy's General Store and Dry Goods and Sotheby's was something like Sotheby's Consignment Auction House, but I'm sure not going to bother trying to find out.

VinnyD, #13, Duhhh, I didn't even check the definition of apostrophize and you're quite correct in saying it doesn't mean to insert an apostrophe. I guess 889, #8, was closer to correct with his newly made-up word, apostrophied. What fun English is!

Edited by: mazgringo

Edited by: mazgringo

VinnyD #13, I was being cutesy, but I did not have the literary term in mind. As to things I know versus things I don't, VinnyD knows that the latter category is so large as to make the former utterly insignificant. But to take a cue from the caveman lawyer, there's one thing I do know: the OED includes "apostrophize" in the sense I indicated, and I've seen and heard it used that way, at least relatively informally. This is not the case with "apostrophied" (even there I'd prefer "apostrophed"), and to me that's the crux of the biscuit.

CK

" . . . the OED includes 'apostrophize' in the sense I indicated . . . ."

No, the OED -- which I took as my authority -- says,

"To omit one or more letters of a word; to mark with the sign (') the omission of letters."

889, you took it as your authority for "apostrophied?"

Please see the OED link I provided at #17.

CK