Talk:St Thomas' Hospital
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Please enlarge the picture in the article and see that the name of the hospital is St. Thomas' Hospital. There is a period after the St, a comma after the s in Thomas, and no s following the comma. THB (talk · contribs)
In a recent episode of Dr. Who, St. Thomas' Hospital is relocated to the moon by aliens who wish to search it without jurisdictional problems. There is even an aerial establishing shot from the episode with a crater where the hospital stands in reality.
Why is the article called 'St Thomas' Hospital'? Is that the formal name of the hospital? Are there interesting historical reasons why this is the case? The correct usage is 'St Thomas's'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Having trained there, the hospital really is called "St Thomas' Hospital", as per their web site http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/about/history.aspx However the medical school is possessive of the hospital and so was called "St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School", as per http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2227661 (before it was merged with Guy's Hospital Medical School to become United Medical and Dental School (UMDS) before in turn merging into King's College). David Ruben Talk 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored "erroneous" to the article. The trustees' preferred spelling for the hospital - without the possessive "s" - is simply wrong, and their "two people called Thomas" defence is a red herring. Their spelling would be correct only where the two people were called Thoma, Thoma being the only word whose plural is Thomas (which, incidentally, would have to be pronounced to rhyme with 'commas'). By analogy with, for example, Jones and Joneses, the plural of Thomas is not Thomas but rather Thomases, e.g. one Doubting Thomas; two Doubting Thomases. If the trustees insist on indicating the "two people called Thomas" aspect the grammatically correct form would be "St Thomases' Hospital". And although somewhat untidy, this would at least have the virtue of according with the normal, three-syllable pronuncation (as of course did the original form with its possessive "s"): the trustees' preferred form cannot claim even this. One can only wonder: (a) why they felt it necessary to change it at all, and (b) how much money was wasted altering all the signs. It is fervently to be hoped that those in charge at the hospital have a better grasp of matters medical than they do of matters grammatical. Bigjimr (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The correct form is St Thomas'. The traditional method was to add an apostrophe to a word ending in s & to add 's to a word with no s. One apostrophe, one s. That's it. Look how simple the proofreading is : x's is always correct, & s' is always correct. (x is any non-s letter.) One apostrophe, one s. No bigamist apostrophes.
That's the traditional method. It's also called the simple method.
The newer ( & much more complicated ) method creates 4 ( really 5 ) categories : singulars without s, singulars with s, plurals without s, & plurals with s ( &, normally, a 5th category comprising expressions like for goodness' sake, where they simply hoist the white flag of surrender because very few people are really willing to speak & write such nonsense as for goodness's sake ). So you end up with 5 categories instead of 2. And there is no quick way to proofread : s's might be correct, or might not ; s' might be correct, or might not. You can't tell just by looking at it. You suddenly have to evaluate the word by both s versus non-s terminal AND by number ( singularity versus plurality ). Whose idea of reform was this farrago ? You ignored number with the old, traditional, simple method.
I'm in the US, &, from the other side of the 'Pond', I applaud St Thomas' Hospital for having the courage to stand up to the language bullies & their rash, wild, harebrained, interminable language 'reform' schemes. You can call me one of St Thomas' supporters. :) 18.104.22.168 (talk)
- May I remind you that discussion pages are for commenting about improvements to articles only. Wikipedia is not a forum site. DivineAlpha (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Completion of North-Wing-Building
In Dec 1975, when I was working at St. Thomas´Hospital on Cheselden ward, the new North block had not yet been completed.I remember only a concrete basic platform at this place.So it was completed in a later year. Who knows when?Vauweh (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)