Jasper Fforde did a reading in Waterstone's in Reading talking about the Grocer's apostrophe. Surrounding him were lots of examples where the company did not not whether to apostrophize themselves or not.
It's obvious you don't change a possessive from the bookstore to the books. If for some reason you want to be really fussy I suppose you could say, "Waterstone's bookstores' books," but honestly, why bother?
The books are not owned by Tim Waterstone, who sold out ages ago; they are owned by a corporate entity called Waterstone's. There is no Waterstone who owns the books.
I'd bet money the corporate entity is not called merely "Waterstone's", so if you're going to be a prig in that way about the thing, then it should still be X's books, where X=full corporate entity name. So Watersone's Bookstores LLC's books, or whatever.
I picked one and the cat leapt on the keyboard and stood on the up and down keys for so long that I picked all of them many times in rapid succession, which I took to be a message from God to stop doing this and go and clear a pathway to the Wonderful Land of Spare Oom.
Congratulations, by the way, I don't see why she should get all the credit ...
I thought that the shop was named after the founder, Mr (Tim?) Waterstone. Therefore the first, singular shop would have been Waterstone's Books (one Waterstone owning a bookshop), but now there is more than one shop, it would be Waterstones' Books (many bookshops).
[How does it work for Boots (the chemist) then ? Boots' products or Boot's products?)
"Therefore the first, singular shop would have been Waterstone's Books (one Waterstone owning a bookshop), but now there is more than one shop, it would be Waterstones' Books (many bookshops)."
I'm not sure about that. If we assume that there is still only one Waterstone owning the bookshops and the books, it is still Tim (or Algernon, or Demetrius, or Horatio, or whatever) Waterstone's bookstones and books, yes?
Following the dictate in The Elements of Style that the posessive is formed by adding apostrophe-s (except for certain ancient proper names such as Moses' and Jesus', and exception that drives me to distraction), the answer is Waterstones's's books.
I don't think I'd use the phrase that needed the extra apostrophe. I'd talk about Waterstone's books the same way as I talk about library books. I don't feel any urge to say library's books.
Have deleted my original comment which was wrong in every particular (I thought trading name was Waterstones not Waterstone's).
In this case the possessive apostrophe belongs to the bookshop (or corporate entity), not the books, so Waterstone's books can't be right. Neither Waterstones' books nor Waterstones books can be right because both modify the punctuation of the trading name (by omitting the possessive apostrophe). Waterstone's' books is wrong because it suggests more than one "Waterstone's" entity, which isn't the case.
I suppose it must be Waterstone's's books, which preserves the trading name and appends the correct singular apostrophe, but it just looks wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
This is a more general point, surely? What about Sainsbury's Bank? Or Sainsbury's burger buns?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Probably simplest to refer to the books stocked in Waterstone's.
no subject
Congratulations, by the way, I don't see why she should get all the credit ...
no subject
no subject
[How does it work for Boots (the chemist) then ? Boots' products or Boot's products?)
no subject
no subject
I'm not sure about that. If we assume that there is still only one Waterstone owning the bookshops and the books, it is still Tim (or Algernon, or Demetrius, or Horatio, or whatever) Waterstone's bookstones and books, yes?
If Boots has products, they are Boots' products.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
In this case the possessive apostrophe belongs to the bookshop (or corporate entity), not the books, so Waterstone's books can't be right. Neither Waterstones' books nor Waterstones books can be right because both modify the punctuation of the trading name (by omitting the possessive apostrophe). Waterstone's' books is wrong because it suggests more than one "Waterstone's" entity, which isn't the case.
I suppose it must be Waterstone's's books, which preserves the trading name and appends the correct singular apostrophe, but it just looks wrong.
no subject
For some reason, I always thought the name of the bookstore was Waterstones and not Waterstone's.
I should pay more attention next time I go to England.