Pedants' Paradise

[smittims]

I suggest elision. One only is required in such cases.

[Pulcinella]

I suggest elision. One only is required in such cases.

I think I concur (but I might check some style guides later).
Doubling up seems ungainly and unnecessary.
But a succession of different symbols is surely correct in a case such as this (referring to the consumer magazine Which?):

Which?'s recommendation is......

[french frank]

.
Perhaps some of the sub-editors here could advise?

I don't think this was dealt with in our house style guide (which did specify 'Rumania' and 'protestor' - though it never seemed to be noticed when we erred). This was mere journalism, however, so if a sub queried it they'd probably be told to recast the sentence.

[kernelbogey]

I don't think this was dealt with in our house style guide (which did specify 'Rumania' and 'protestor' - though it never seemed to be noticed when we erred). This was mere journalism, however, so if a sub queried it they'd probably be told to recast the sentence.

Always, IMV, the best solution to such dilemmas.

[Serial_Apologist]

Which?'s recommendation is......

It's strange how some conventions produce what some (such as myself) would consider ungainly. I would have written "The recommendation of Which? is....", or "Which? recommends...".

One issue which I never manage to resolve in my own mind is the use of the possessive apostrophe for words ending in -s. Should the following be "John Stevens's bands included...", or "John Stevens' bands included..."?

[Roger Webb]

It's strange how some conventions produce what some (such as myself) would consider ungainly. I would have written "The recommendation of Which? is....", or "Which? recommends...".

One issue which I never manage to resolve in my own mind is the use of the possessive apostrophe for words ending in -s. Should the following be "John Stevens's bands included...", or "John Stevens' bands included..."?

Brahms's 1st, or Brahms' 1st? Both 'correct', but I prefer the latter.

But it has to be Delius's 'Paris'....you see Delius' written as a possessive quite often, which seems wrong to me because you can't say it like that....what you write should be what you say.

[gurnemanz]

Brahms's 1st, or Brahms' 1st? Both 'correct', but I prefer the latter.

Brahms's 1st, or Brahms' 1st?
I would regard the latter version as incorrect. The reason one might be inclined to write it is that in speech one might prefer "Brahms 1st" to the more ungainly "Brahmziz First". I would think that "Brahms 1st" (like "Shakespeare plays" or indeed "cat food") is not a possessive but a compound noun and therefore does not require an apostrophe.

[LMcD]

Brahms 1st - well done Johannes! Who came 2nd?
Britannica has 'Throughout Brahms's career .....'

[vinteuil]

.
... most style guides provide sound solutions to these apostrophe questions (and often different editors will use different style guides with different (valid) solutions). Charles's but Aristophanes' &c.

The one I really object to is the London hospital - which they spell St Thomas' - but then expect you to pronounce St Thomasiz






.

[french frank]

I would think that "Brahms 1st" (like "Shakespeare plays" or indeed "cat food") is not a possessive but a compound noun and therefore does not require an apostrophe.

No. Brahms 1 does not require an apostrophe, but if you use 1st (which implies at least a 2nd) an apostrophe and the pronunciation Brahmsiz Second is logical because it follows a more general rule. And therefore - to my logical mind is preferable.

[Roger Webb]

.
...

The one I really object to is the London hospital - which they spell St Thomas' - but then expect you to pronounce St Thomasiz





.

Absolutely!.....my objection to Delius' Paris.

An amusing case of apostrophe missing completely, seen on the desk of Manager Richard Foster indicating where to put his mail, was:-
Dicks In Tray