/ Rob Beschizza / 7:44 am Fri Jan 13, 2012

Bookseller removes apostrophe from own name


British bookseller Waterstone's is dropping the apostrophe from its name, but keeping the possessive form: Waterstones. In a press release, Waterstone's claims that apostrophes are "impractical" in a "digital world of URLs and email"—but others point out that it's not hurting McDonald's or U.K. mega-retailer Sainsbury's.

"You would really hope that a bookshop is the last place to be so slapdash with English," says John Richards of the Apostrophe Protection Society, interviewed by The Independent's Harry Wallop.

The weird thing for me is that the "practical" excuse seems to be a rationalization for a design decision that many companies have made over the years; consider London's peerless Harrods department store. Apostrophes can look awkward in logos. It's as if the capital fund that owns Waterstone's is ignorant both of why the design decision is reasonable and why it is historically and contextually inappropriate here--and must generate extra, stupid reasons that it can justify to itself.

73

  2. You know, there was a time in this country when smart people were considered cool. Well, maybe not cool…

  3. Parts of Britain have also decided to drop possessive apostrophes from street signs and location markers. It seems that, among the internet generation, doing away with possessive apostrophes altogether (evidently recycling them in order to construct incorrectly pluralized “word’s”) is the new norm (see, for example, just about any page on reddit.com), so perhaps this move will appeal to the young demographic.

    1. Well, since the apostrophes main use is to distinguish plural’s from posessive’s, perhaps the use’s will simply reverse and it will make sense the other way around.

    2. The main problem I have with your opinion is that you are inconsistent. Internet is a proper noun and, even in this context, deserves a capital letter.

      1. I believe that “internet” is a generic term – although the organizations that derive their income and reason for existence from the network prefer it to be a Proper Noun that they can trademark or inflate into a more important-sounding product. The reality, in my opinion, is that the internet is simply another network and we don’t (dont?) capitalize Telephone or Cable any longer, either.

  4. They should rename it “Waterstones Book’s.” If you’re going to be illiterate, go all the way.

  5. There was a great piece on the radio the other night which tl;dr said, “rules don’t apply to names”.  A name is merely an expression by which a thing is recognised and doesn’t need to follow any rules.  In fact this makes the grammar a little easier for example, “Waterstone’s’s shareholders would approve of this move” is a tad inelegant.

    1. “…Waterstone’s’s shareholders would approve of this move” is a tad inelegant.

      Yes, but that’s where you pull out the trusty old “shareholders of Waterstone’s” in its place.

      1. The reason it appears inelegant is that it’s illiterate. Just like when you have to combine a plural and a possessive, a double possessive takes its apostrophe after the s.

    2. Actually, “Waterstone’s shareholders” is perfectly acceptable- you just need to parse it slightly differently. For example, “Coca-Cola shareholders” and “Coca-Cola’s shareholders” express the same idea. The possessive in this context is largely redundant.

    4. Well, traditionally you’d write that “Waterstone’s shareholders” and just not double it. 
      The new form should give “Waterstones’ shareholders” since it now looks like it’s a plural possessive, which is likely to cause nearly as much confusion.

  6. I’m not a Brit and this makes me want to ask:

    Is Waterstone’s- sorry, Waterstones*, some trendy place where people go to be seen near books? Because I don’t get the impression the people running the joint read them.

    *I actually wrote it twice with an apostrophe and had to go back and fix it.

  7. Law firms in Britain and Canada do this all the time with their names.  Gowling, Lafleur, & Henderson becomes “Gowlings”.  
    Blake, Cassels & Graydon becomes “Blakes”.  See also “Tim Hortons”.

  9. We are the Apostrophe Protection Society.
    God save Punctuation from misguided insobriety.
    We are the “No Brick and Mortar” Persecution Affinity,
    Doing all we can to protect linguistic virginity!

    (With apologies to The Kinks.)

  11. Excellent.  I’m quite happy to see the gradual death of the long-outdated use of an apostrophe & s to indicate possession when if you read it properly “Waterstone’s” is simply “Waterstone Is.”  English, thankfully, evolves and we can all be the happier for it.

    Also, with any luck it means people can stop being grammar jerks on the Internet and being hung up on every use of “it’s.”

    1. At first I wanted to disagree and say that the apostrophe is necessary, but then I realized I speak another language that doesn’t indicate possession in its orthography. You’re right, it’s not necessary.

      But, neither are a lot of other features. Whether or not this is an evolution has more to do with adoption than anything else. A marketing move by a bookseller that’s getting mixed reviews at best isn’t really the official start of an evolution in the language.

    2. Etymologically the distinction comes from Anglo-Saxon noun declensions -as (plural) -es (genitive).

    1. The movie “Idiocracy” made a joke about the gradual dumbing down of society by following as “Fudd-Ruckers” gradually changed their name to “Butt:Fuckers”

      Personally, I say to hell with the gradual dumbing down of society, I want a burger from Butt:Fuckers now!

      On an aside, my favorite line from that movie was “Welcome to Costco, I love you”

  14. I’ve been predicting for years that people now living will see the day when the apostrophe becomes an entirely decorative mark, with no official meaning whatsoever.

    Yes, it’s a useful disambiguating mark. But English has never given a rat’s hindquarters about automatic disambiguation, or it wouldn’t be absolutely clogged to the gunwhales with homonyms and homophones. For many parts of speech, the rule has always been and always will be “figure it out from context.” We will live to see that rule applied to possessives versus plurals.

    I’ll go on using them as correctly as I can remember, time permitting. But I’m an old fogey that way. Those of you who still get outraged over this? Are ordering the tide not to come in.

    1. “absolutely clogged to the gunwhales with homonyms and homophones”

      If you think it’s bad in english, try learning chinese!

  15. The use of the apostrophe to indicate the distinction between possessive and plural is the Johnny-come-lately here and is completely unnecessary for comprehension. There are no apostrophes in spoken English. People got along just fine for centuries of perfectly literate writing without needing it for the possessive and it wasn’t until the mania for grammar manuals in the 17th and 18th century that the practice developed. Most people who decry violations of the rules of the language know astonishingly little about those rules or their history.

    2. I agree.  No sense indicating possession, anyone with the same surname should be allowed to share equally in the profits.  “I’m a Waterstone. Where’s my piece of the pie?”

      1. Not only does what you’ve said not make any sense, it also doesn’t follow from anything I have said. I did not say you don’t need to indicate the possessive, I said you do not need an apostrophe to distinguish the possessive from the plural.

        1. I used to get bothered by grocery stores that gave up their apostrophes, like Vons and Albertsons.  Always seemed to me that a grocery chain called Ralph’s would carry fewer negative connotations than one called Ralphs (which may as well be called Vomits), but that was before I learned it was founded by a guy named George Ralphs.

          Vons (founded by Charles Von der Ahe) and Albertsons (founded by Joe Albertson) don’t have the excuse.  Their corporate signage makes it look like a place where they’re selling off members of their families or something.  But whatever; those apostrophes were discarded decades ago, and few alive today remember them ever having them.

          The dissonance in this case comes from it being a bookseller, of course, and the concomitant appearance of an informal attitude toward grammar and literacy.  Companies can format their names however they want, as far as I’m concerned (Dr Pepper hasn’t been Dr. Pepper with a period for close to sixty years, for example), but I am gonna be a bit disappointed if Vroman’s decides to pull this kind of stunt.

  16. Oh, you’d be surprised. Depending on who and which country you communicate with,  you’ll see all kinds of variations and misspellings by people who are not used to dealing with apostrophes (or just can’t type): Waterstone’s, Waterstones, Waterstone´s, Waterstone`s, Waterstone‘s, Waterstone’s, Waterstone:s, Waterstone s. Can’t blame them for simplifying it for the sake of simplification ;-).

    Edit: I used to work at a huge (like hundreds of thousands of employees) multinational megacorp and our accountants wouldn’t accept invoices if our company name was even slightly incorrect, including punctuation. Granted, that was in East Asia; not sure how strict Brits are in this regard but I can easily see how it can be a nuisance.

    And finally: why come up with a contrived alternative theory when they give you a perfectly good reason? You can change logos without changing your company name.

  17. We’ve got a place in the mall called “Sportscard Fantasy’s”, where neither the apostrophe nor the possessive form make any sense. I always wonder how they got an expensive lighted sign built without anyone ever saying something about it.

    1. You wouldn’t say this if you’d ever had a sign made. They don’t give a damn about anything other than getting you to sign off on your specifications, and then they’ll still completely screw up.

  18. I wonder if this could actually be formalized as a rule. 
    e.g. When the object of a possessive noun is omitted from a sentence, no apostrophe is required.

    I’m sure there are a dozen reasons this means that I’m not helping.

    1. That would needlessly complicate things – two ‘correct’ possessive forms. Rules might seem like encumbrances but they were mostly developed to make the meaning clearer.

  20. For me as a German, this is really incredibly funny. My native language doesn’t use an apostrophe for indicating the possessive form, but lots of people use it because they’ve seen it in English texts. So the English are now dropping the apostrophe because they don’t bother to use their language correctly while at the same time lots of Germans introduce apostrophes into a language where they never belonged? Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

    1. Ah, the real fun is that here in Germany a lot of apostrophe usage is “Greengrocer’s Apostrophe”, or misapplying it to a plural instead of a possessive.

      I won’t even get into the misuse between “its” and “it’s”, as even we “Englisch-Muttersprachler” get it wrong often.

  21. Is anyone else confused by the image accompanying the article, and wondering if we’re yet-again diving deep into the rabbit hole that is Rob Beschizza’s mind?

    Starbucks and Butt-Fuckers seem apropo, but Brawndo, The Thirst Mutilator? Haulin’ Ass, Gettin’ Paid? The FDA Food Pyramid?

    Please, we love seeing your brain at work. Connect all these images for us!

    1. Yes; from bottom to top, the logos are roughly yellowish, reddish and greenish. It’s for aesthetic reasons.

      1. Ah, thank you. I really need to watch that some time.

        I’m disappointed, though. I was imagining a great montage of you cutting and pasting pictures together in your darkened room while listening to the soundtrack from Pi — “and Starbucks connects to Buttfuckers, which is derived from the pyramid, and… Oh my God everything makes perfect sense!”

  22. I’m looking at the sign at top right.  I think it would be better to spell it ‘musheen’. 

    If you’re mangling a spelling in order to give your brand a distinction, use your whole ass.

  24. I just wish Specialty’s Bakeries in Seattle would fix their name.   Or, find someone named Specialty to run it.

  26. I’ve long held the belief that if you’re unsure about an apostrophe, you should just omit it in writing.  I’d much rather see a missing one than one incorrectly placed!

    I wonder if this is part of a gradual shift away from apostrophes altogether.  

  27. Here’s an easy fix; just build them next to each other, thus making them plural.

    But fuck with my semi-colons and I will find you and kill you.

  28. I work for Waterstones. The last chain of bookshops in the UK that is. Over the last year HMV Group, who used to own us til the summer, implemented a rebranding that changed the lovely, traditional Baskerville font with the iconic ‘W’ in a measure that was half-arsed. It was never fully rolled out. Waterstones has now readopted the Baskerville font. THAT is lovely news. An apostrophe? Really? Marks and Spencers? Harrods? Shall I continue to pick and choose brands as others do, in my case those that have dropped or, more accurately, simply do not use an apostrophe where possibly they may have started with one?

    It does not matter. This is a brand, a logo; where creativity and aesthetics play a bigger role, particularly when graphic design teams get involved, for use in retail. This change is not taking place in an area where English actually ‘matters’ – as horrendous as that sounds. iPod anyone? That is an example of such a simple use of language, and is now iconic. That ‘i’. Good work Apple. I am not comparing Waterstones to Apple. I am saying language evolves, should be allowed to, and this change does not mark a signifcant shift in the ‘death of the apostrophe’ or something. Sadly, Waterstones does not have such power.

    Thousands of individual, unique booksellers work for it. It’s name should not related to a single man, who hasn’t worked there for many many MANY years (Tim Waterstone, the founder). This move is a nod that those days are over, now that we have new owners and a lot of fantastic changes. And a great M.D. who is encouraging stores to find their own feet. God knows the company has needed it for many a year.

    So yay. I am glad it’s changed. It’s a non event given what else is happening in the world of language, commerce and bookselling. The irony is that in a bookshop, regardless if it’s Waterstones or any independent, you will find some of the most interesting and literaturate people around, who thrive in environments where knowledge is promoted and irony is needed. After all, if you’ve worked in retail, although you’ll have soon learnt that a lovely majority of the public are indeed lovely, sometimes real treats to serve and engage with, a vocal minority will always remain who refuse to even approach acceptable levels of human decency. In gleefully complaining about an apostrophe, taking an easy swipe, which group do you fall closer to?

    (Also, this publicity, well, I sneakily think it’s not bad at all! Come, look around. Buy a book. Ask for a recommendation. Ask what the rebranding means to an everyday bookseller. Maybe you’ll get a knowing smile. Toodles!)

    1. I’m not usually the pedantic guy, so I choose to believe your use of  “it’s” in the third paragraph — where one would usually use “its” — is a clever joke.

  30. The British also have a peculiar (at least, to me) way of referring to groups – for instance, we Americans think of and refer to companies as a singular entity, while the Brits look upon a company as a plural from the get go. Example: In America we would say “Apple is the maker of the iPhone,” whilst the Brits would say “Apple are the makers of the iPhone.” So perhaps the demise of the apostrophe was always destined to start there.

    1. I seem to remember an article in a British heavy metal magazine, and the article’s title was “Great White Are!!”  The assumption was that they were saying “Great White (the band) are great,” and as a high-schooler at the time, it jarred me a bit that they wouldn’t have said “Great White is great.”  Like, you know, “Judas Priest is awesome,” or “Iron Maiden kicks ass.”  I could always tell when record reviews came from an American source, because they’d refer to bands as singular items, or risk sounding pretentious (or British) to our Yankee hillbilly metalhead ears.

      Like when rock journalists would refer to “the Pink Floyd.”  Wha…?

      1. I seem to remember an article in a British heavy metal magazine, and the article’s title was “Great White Are!!” The assumption was that they were saying “Great White (the band) are great,” and as a high-schooler at the time, it jarred me a bit that they wouldn’t have said “Great White is great.”

        Verbum sat.

  31. Oh man iſn’t it the worſt when language is a changing thing that iſn’t ſtatic?  This is what I ſaid when they ſtopped being Waterſtone’s.  So awful, the worſt thing ever.

  32. I can appreciate that there really are a few, minor good reasons for changes like this.

    Example: My car’s GPS stores a list of store and other point-of-interest names. These names include punctuation. However, the UI does *not* give you any means of inputting punctuation, which basically means that for some searches you have to truncate the name and scroll through an enormously long list.

  33. We need different texts to do different things. At one extreme there are poetic texts at the other instructions for use. Poetry requires the conscious/unconscious play of ambiguity and disambiguation which requires rules to be knowingly/unknowingly observed and broken. Instructions for the correct dosage of a medicine require a complete lack of ambiguity.
    Commonly observed rules do seem necessary. There is progress in scriptural/orthographical conventions.

Comments are closed.