Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street on the
Jubilee Line the other day.

The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

So which is right?

Regards
John M Upton

John Upton:
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

"San John's Wood"? Interesting variation. :-)

So which is right?

Either, both, or neither, as you wish. There is no single definitive
source for the "true" name of an Underground station, and many stations
have had this sort of variation.

Of course, if the station was named after something, and *that* has an
official or universally used spelling, you might take that to be indicative...
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Just because it's correct doesn't
make it right!" -- Jonas Schlein

Mark Brader wrote:
John Upton:
The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St John's
Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

"San John's Wood"? Interesting variation. :-)

So which is right?

Either, both, or neither, as you wish. There is no single definitive
source for the "true" name of an Underground station, and many stations
have had this sort of variation.

Logic would suggest that St John's Wood is more likely to be correct,
because the wood then belongs to St John, rather than being a wood
consisting of multiple "St John"s, or named after "St Johns"...

....whereas Earl's Court or Barons Court could reasonably have their
counterpart spellings, given that a court might either belong to an earl
or a baron, or be composed of multiples thereof.

My local Shepherd's Bush always bugs me, because although most Tube maps
show it "correctly", buses rarely do - partly because although the
location seems to be officially named "Shepherd's Bush" and the green
space is called "Shepherd's Bush Common", the road that runs along the
southeastern and western sides of the Common is apparently "Shepherds
Bush Green"*. Argh!

I can understand how a bush would *belong* to a Shepherd, but a bush
composed of shepherds? Or maybe even "bush" is a verb... dogs bark,
sheep bleat, shepherds bush?

Of course, if the station was named after something, and *that* has an
official or universally used spelling, you might take that to be indicative...

* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:


* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

--
What happened to the publication "Nicholson's London Streetfinder"?
It was much better than the A thru Z.

Adrian.

On 30 Jun 2006 14:23:07 -0700, wrote:


Dave Arquati wrote:


* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

--
What happened to the publication "Nicholson's London Streetfinder"?

Probably now branded as "Collins" (if still published), my 1995
Nicholson Greater London Street Atlas carrying the information "a
division of HarperCollinsPublishers [sic]".

It was much better than the A thru Z.

If you mean an A-Z, anything used to be better but they seem to
improved in more recent years although whoever's name appears in the
big print, the small print usually credits the Ordnance Survey.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:53:57 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

What happened to the publication "Nicholson's London Streetfinder"?

Probably now branded as "Collins" (if still published), my 1995
Nicholson Greater London Street Atlas carrying the information "a
division of HarperCollinsPublishers [sic]".

I think it's still published as the Collins street atlas. The A5-ish
version covers a slightly different area to the similarly-sized A-Z,
it includes more of the SW London/Surrey bit and a bit less of North
London. Or it did when I lived in New Malden.

Charles Ellson wrote:

If you mean an A-Z, anything used to be better

Better in what way? I always hated the Nicholson's.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 Charles Ellson wrote:

On 30 Jun 2006 14:23:07 -0700, wrote:


Dave Arquati wrote:


* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

--
What happened to the publication "Nicholson's London Streetfinder"?

Probably now branded as "Collins" (if still published), my 1995
Nicholson Greater London Street Atlas carrying the information "a
division of HarperCollinsPublishers [sic]".

It was much better than the A thru Z.

If you mean an A-Z, anything used to be better but they seem to
improved in more recent years although whoever's name appears in the
big print, the small print usually credits the Ordnance Survey.

Speaking of London atlases and apostrophes, the best atlas I have come
across is Philip's Street Atlas London, published by Philip's.

Those apostrophes are fine. But I also have, dating from an earlier
age, Philips' Modern School Atlas, published by George Philip & Son Ltd.
I wonder what that one is doing there.
--
Thoss

Dave Arquati wrote:

(snip)

I can understand how a bush would *belong* to a Shepherd, but a bush
composed of shepherds?

You could just have a bush named after more than one shepherd. This
would not require any apostrophe unless it were dedicated to shepherds.

Or maybe even "bush" is a verb... dogs bark,
sheep bleat, shepherds bush?

A few years ago an Australian linguist discovered that "bush" is a
preposition. So if your shepherds go bush, now you know where to find
them!

It should be pointed out that some linguists claimed he was wrong, and
"bush" is an adverb. "Shepherds" does also happen to be a verb, but it's
a bit difficult to combine the two, as shepherding is only permitted
near the ball. If a footy player shepherds bush, he's likely to get
pinged by an umpire!

* depending on which maps you consult (A-Z or Bart's) and whether you
prefer the LB Hammersmith & Fulham's usage (which rarely includes an
apostrophe on anything Bush-related).

Surely you don't expect him to understand apostrophes?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

JMUpton2000 wrote:

Something I wondered as I took a rare journey north of Baker Street on the
Jubilee Line the other day.

The on board scrolling displays and the tube maps say it is spelt St
John's Wood with apostrophe but the platform roundels omit it.

So which is right?

Both, neither who knows.

On Wikipedia the principle that a lot are generally happy with (at least the
last time I'm aware this came up) is to use the current tube map spelling on
the basis that station decorations take a lot longer to change and some
platforms use multiple stations (e.g. King's Cross St. Pancras
Circle/H&C/Met) so this is the only real consistent standard.