[Closed] Waterstone's abandon their apostrophe.

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.

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

You think they've got as much as 10 years left? I'd give them 2 years max and thats optimistic, not least because all their work to break the Net Book Agreement back in the 90's has come back to bite them as thats what now allows Amazon to effectively pay for their customers to buy books, which they can afford to keep doing until there are no other book sellers (and even publishers) left. But more ominously for them... after the riots last summer my friend got home from holiday to find every shop on her local high st smashed and looted - except Waterstone's which was completely untouched, with even its apostrophe intact. That to me spells doom, not only because even in a complete mindless free-for-all nobody wanted their stuff for nowt when theres bottled water and value rice up for grabs, but because they were so irrelevant it wasn't even fun to smash the windows.

But more ominously for them... after the riots last summer my friend got home from holiday to find every shop on her local high st smashed and looted - except Waterstone's which was completely untouched, with even its apostrophe intact. That to me spells doom, not only because even in a complete mindless free-for-all nobody wanted their stuff for nowt when theres bottled water and value rice up for grabs, but because they were so irrelevant it wasn't even fun to smash the windows.

Wisdom.

Changing the signs at Waterstone's is like buying new earrings for Pat Butcher.

But more ominously for them... after the riots last summer my friend got home from holiday to find every shop on her local high st smashed and looted - except Waterstone's which was completely untouched, with even its apostrophe intact. That to me spells doom, not only because even in a complete mindless free-for-all nobody wanted their stuff for nowt when theres bottled water and value rice up for grabs, but because they were so irrelevant it wasn't even fun to smash the windows.

Or maybe nobody was actually smashing windows for fun, just to get at what was inside. I don't suppose Waterstone[s]'[/s]s will be all that bothered that they don't have potential customers amongst the rioters.

I wonder if they're going to turn them upside down and use them on their e-commas website?