[Closed] Waterstone's abandon their apostrophe.

Representing a return to an old brand as well as the loss of an apostrophe, the design press is alive with this news today.

As a designer myself, I can say that I couldn't give a shit either way.

Pedant's Revolt

I think you mean Pedants' Revolt, comrade!

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9007692/Waterstones-drops-its-apostrophe.html ]James Daunt, the managing director, who took over the chain last year following a change of ownership said: “Waterstones without an apostrophe is, in a digital world of URLs and email addresses, a more versatile and practical spelling." [/url]

Oh, okay then

[i]John Richards, the chairman of the Apostrophe Protection Society said: "It's just plain wrong. It's grammatically incorrect. If Sainsbury's and McDonald's can get it right, then why can't Waterstones. You would really hope that a bookshop is the last place to be so slapdash with English."[/i]

I can't help but agree.

the forthcoming Pedant's Revolt

Just you then? Or did you mean Pedants' Revolt?

😉

edit: d'oh, beaten by headfirst

I think we should just quietly let it die. It doesn't really add anything, apart from as you say, adding another line to the Charter of Pedantry.

Have a look at the URL for this thread:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/waterstones-abandon-their-apostrophe

The internet doesn't care about punctuation so not sure of the value of us caring too much either. You can fight it, but I wish you good luck. Start typing Waterstone's into Google and you'll notice Waterstones comes up as a suggestion, not Waterstone's. Frankly I don't blame the board of Waterstones for making this decision.

[EDIT - James Daunt beat me to it]

[url= http://www.thebookseller.com/news/media-reacts-waterstones-logo-change.html ]The chairman of the Apostrophe Society[/url] has called Waterstones' dropping of its apostrophe "just plain wrong" ...

😆

doh, just seen IHN is also aware of The Society.

I think we should just quietly let it die. It doesn't really add anything, ..

Waterstones?

I can't help but agree.

I do too, but;

chairman of the Apostrophe Protection Society

😆

My neighbour has an baby apostrophe that he keeps locked up in a small cage in the garage, should I report him to the APS?

I can't understand the problem - surely a shop owned by Waterstone could be the possessive "Waterstone's shop" or just the plural "we're going to the Waterstones" as in "we're going for tea with the Smiths"?

"we're going for tea with the Smiths"?

oooh, can I come please? Are daffodils optional?

They've always had the apostraphe, as far as I'm aware.

As soon as I seize power this sort of thing will be outlawed immediately.
I look forward to beating those responsible for naming 'Kwik Fit' to death with a very large, very heavy dictionary. 😀

Nbt & headfirst, congratulations!
You've passed the test. Join me, together we will annoy the world!

It's nothing to do with being plural though is it? It's possessive. So it should have an apostrophe.

"we're going [b]to[/b] the Waterstones" as in "we're going for tea [b]with[/b] the Smiths"?

What is an apostrophe again ?

I think we should just quietly let it die. It doesn't really add anything, apart from as you say, adding another line to the Charter of Pedantry.

It's not a case of letting it die. It's basic punctuation. It has no reason to die out.

Personally I'd execute anyone that can't grasp basic punctuation.

What is an apostrophe again ?

It's an upside down comma.

It's all irrelevant since Waterstones will cease to exist in 10 years anyway, having been beaten into submission by Amazon.

I think we should just quietly let it die.

The apostrophe? Still needed IMHO - the meaning of sentences can be completely changed by a missing or misplaced apostrophes, which can be important for contracts etc. Just because people struggle with correct usage doesn't mean we should give up!

As a designer myself, I can say that I couldn't give a shit either way.

Personally I'd execute anyone that can't grasp basic punctuation.

See, I'd have written [i]"Personally[b],[/b] I'd execute ..." [/i]- I'm guessing I'd have my back against the wall?
Who's correct, or is it ambiguous?

It's not a case of letting it die. It's basic punctuation. It has no reason to die out.

...but as the MD - and me - pointed out, that wasn't the point. I think he has a very valid argument. Let's just say they have [i]changed[/i] their name rather than dropping a necessary apostrophe.

Can't see them staying in business long anyhow, so it will soon all be academic...

See, I'd have written "Personally, I'd execute ..." - I'm guessing I'd have my back against the wall?
Who's correct, or is it ambiguous?

Could be. I originally had a comma after "Personally", but I was seething with rage so thought it better to blurt the whole sentence out without a pause.

I do too, but;

I reckon that should be:

[i]I do too; but:[/i]

The apostrophe? Still needed IMHO - the meaning of sentences can be completely changed by a missing or misplaced apostrophes,

Whilst that's true, it's not the case with [s]Waterstone's[/s] Waterstones, is it?

Businesses change their names all the time.

There are many forms of English usage that have died out, thee and thou, for example.

Nobody knows how to use the possessive apostrophe (well, apart from us obviously EDIT some, of us), and the meaning is usually clear from context. We don't all make a hand signal to denote it when we speak do we ?

Legal documents, yes I can see your point there, but surely ambiguity in contracts is the bread and butter of legal fees ?

We don't all make a hand signal to denote it when we speak, do we?

Whilst that's true, it's not the case with Waterstone's Waterstones, is it?

Businesses change their names all the time.

Agreed. I have no preference on the Waterstones thing - do what they like if they think it creates and stronger and simpler brand identity.

Legal documents, yes I can see your point there, but surely ambiguity in contracts is the bread and butter of legal fees ?

Ha ha, so cycnical for one so young Hels. As a drafter of property related legal documents, I consantly live in hope that none of my drafting will ever be tested in a court action!

Edit:- I wonder if this whole Edinburgh trams fiasco was caused by a misplaced apostrophe in the contract. 😕

I do too, but;

I reckon that should be:

I do too; but:

But the sentence following that began with a lower case letter, so it's should surely be ';' rather than ':' at the end. I think it sould be a comma before the "but" as well.

Sainsbury's never used to have an apostrophe though did it? And I am not sure Morrisons ever have.

Round [s]'ere[/s] here, if you wish to tell someone you are going to do your Food Shop at Asda, you say: "I's goin' Asda's." -I am sure the apostrophes are still out there, just being used by different people in different retail sectors. 😉

I'm making a hand signal right now...

The apostrophe is a new fangled foreign invention that has no place in English. It comes from France of all places!!!

We should be returning English to its proper ways and getting rid of such things.

We should be campaigning for the reintroduction of the long s and not for keeping foreign inventions.

We don't all make a hand signal to denote it when we speak, do we?

Is it just me that would pronounce it: Waterstones - Waterstone(s), Waterstone's - Waterstone(z)?

Sainsbury's never used to have an apostrophe though did it? And I am not sure Morrisons ever have.

This is nowhere near as annoying as people who say, "Wayrose" or "Wayroses" when they mean "Waitrose", or "wha evvvuh" when they mean "whatever". That t there, it's there for a reason.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!

thisisnotaspoon - yes, probably just you.

I would say all those words exactly the same, but then I am a Kiwi and have to get by on only two vowel sounds.

Wartistinns Wartistinns Wartistinns & Wartistinns

[img] [/img]

Hels, it might help if you tried writing these words down. Do you have a pin handy? 😉

But the sentence following that began with a lower case letter, so it's should surely be ';' rather than ':' at the end. I think it sould be a comma before the "but" as well.

You've used a semicolon to introduce something (the other user's quote). It's arguable whether there should be a comma or a semicolon between 'too' and 'but'; but there should definitely be a colon after 'but' to present the quote in the manner you have. Check [url= http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node17.html ]this link[/url] for an educated explanation.

They should have just dropped the 's', WHSmith seem to manage without one.

have a look at the url for this thread

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/waterstones-abandon-their-apostrophe

the internet doesnt care about punctuation so not sure of the value of us caring too much either you can fight it but i wish you good luck start typing waterstones into google and youll notice waterstones comes up as a suggestion not waterstones frankly I dont blame the board of waterstones for making this decision

FTFY (given you apparently don't care for things which don't appear in URLs)

First they came for our apostrophes and we did nothing. Then they came for our semicolons and we did nothing. 'Tis a slippery slope.

ha ha aracer ha ha

🙄

Boots, Selfridges, Harrods and Clarks...

I wonder what the grammatical rules are for adding 'siz' to the shop name?
Bootsiz
Clarksiz
But Selfridgiz, Asduz, and so on..

Can a single word even be grammatical? 😉

It is no longer 'a bookshop belonging to Waterstone' as it used to be, and even if it was - Reuters was founded by Mr Reuter. You don't see people whinging about it not being Reuter's.

'Waterstones' has ceased being a regular word, and they can do what they like with it. To me, it's a little bit like the way grammar changes when words are grouped together, or used in a different context. 'I fly, he flew' but in baseball 'I fly out, he flied out' or 'one wild-goose chase, two wild-goose chases'. Or 'e. e. cummings.'

I wonder if it's actually for consistency online. The Gadget Shop tried this and for a while we had "TheGadgetShop.com" on the high street. And what happened to them? They went bust. Slippery slope, Waterstone(')s.

In seriousness; I think it's the sort of thing which, as a brand name, doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things generally. The name may originate from "the shop founded by Mr Waterstone," but the change is fairly readily dismissible by rebranding to a similar sounding word meaning "a number of stones next to some water."

I agree though that if anyone should be grammatically correct, it should be a book shop. Whilst it might not really matter as a brand name, it's the sort of thing which really pees me off from a language point of view.

Tesco's 👿

What about Currys?

And yeah Tescos has often annoyed me.

Tescoes, surely? 🙂

What about Currys?

And yeah Tescos has often annoyed me.

Tescoes, surely?

But it's called Tesco.

Not Tescos, Tesco's or Tescoes.

Tesco.

whileAIDSandfamineisignored

Why do people post these sort of tags?

Why isn't this tagger off helping the starving in Africa instead of tagging on forums?

Why do people post these sort of tags?

Perhaps they've realised than Amazon doesn't have one and want to emulate them?

Precisely, and the fact that bad things are happening the world means that nobody is allowed to discuss anything else, think about anything else or god forbid laugh about something until all the worlds ills have been resolved.

The other **** one I've noticed quite a lot is [i]#firstworldproblems[/i]

To me, it's a little bit like the way grammar changes when words are grouped together, or used in a different context. 'I fly, he flew' but in baseball 'I fly out, he flied out' or 'one wild-goose chase, two wild-goose chases'.

The first is an Americanism (which I have to admit I haven't ever come across), the second is and always has been grammatically correct.

Aracer - in both cases the prescriptivist might argue for 'I fly out, he flew out' and 'one wild-goose chase, two wild-geese chases' They're wrong, obviously, as, like you say, both are grammatically correct. But if you apply a narrow, rules-out-of-context, thinking to them you get the incorrect versions, just as applying narrow, out of context rules to 'Waterstones' makes them think 'Waterstone's' is grammatical.

In 100 years(') time we'll wonder what the fuss was about. Mainly because I'll be 147 then, but most apostrophes have disappeared completely.

But it's called Tesco.

Not Tescos, Tesco's or Tescoes.

Tesco.

+1 This grates sometimes.

Tescoes, surely?

But it's called Tesco.

I know, that was a joke.

So, language experts - what was in the language 100 years ago that is not present now?

Let's hope Mr Potato never starts a shop...

So, language experts - what was in the language 100 years ago that is not present now?

[i]#whoknows[/i]

Let's hope Mr Potato never starts a shop...

Dan Quayle couldn't even spell 'Quail'.

That t there, it's there for a reason.

Nah, it's a gloal stop, innit. And what do riff-raff like that know of Waitrose anyway?

And didn't [s]Wat[/s] Which Tyler invent the Pedants' Revolt?

What was in the language 100 years' ago? How long have you got?

I like precision as much as the next chap, but I also think change is more than inevitable and new usages keep life interesting. The good ones stick around, the bad ones don't. I reckon the apostrophe is on its way out gradually; same as the semi-colon.

If you really want to be picky about it, then there's no such thing as a Waterstone is there, that's not possible.

They're thinking of ice.

headfirst - Member

"we're going for tea with the Smiths"?

oooh, can I come please? Are daffodils optional?

The other **** one I've noticed quite a lot is #firstworldproblems

I think that's called successful market penetration.

well, in this time of austerity and hardship on the high streets it's good to see that waterstones have so little to worry about they can direct their energy to the task of deciding whether to apostrophise their name or not.

well, in this time of austerity and hardship on the high streets it's good to see that waterstones have so little to worry about they can direct their energy to the task of deciding whether to apostrophise their name or not.

If it gets more traffic to their website - for reasons mentioned above - then that's a good thing, n'est-ce pas? I suspect they're already past worrying much about the high street stores 😉

They're wrong, obviously, as, like you say, both are grammatically correct.

I think you'll find I suggested the first is an Americanism, rather than endorsing its use.

But if you apply a narrow, rules-out-of-context, thinking to them you get the incorrect versions, just as applying narrow, out of context rules to 'Waterstones' makes them think 'Waterstone's' is grammatical.

If you apply the rules incorrectly you get the incorrect version. Just as applying the rules incorrectly makes you think "Waterstones" is correct. Not really a terribly good analogy if that's the point you were trying to make.

The French have the right idea. All accents and punctuation are ignored when using capital letters.

Just as applying the rules incorrectly makes you think "Waterstones" is correct.

I'm off to Robert Dyas's and then John Lewis's followed by Clarke's

Q. Is "waterstones" a plural noun, someone's shop or a business brand?

A. It's a brand, so adding an apos. just confuses matters IMO. Unless the business is marketing itself as someone's shop.

Also, I don't get the fascination with the fact they are a book shop so "should know better". Do you think they check every novel that comes through the door to make sure the prose is grammatically correct before putting it on the shelves? They'd have a field day with jack Kerouac.

And what do riff-raff like that know of Waitrose anyway?

They do big loaves of nice bread and bottles of milk for just ten pence on Saturday evenings.