Pedants' corner: placement of apostrophe - help needed

[AcidReflux]

Here's an exciting scenario:

Picture if you will a company run by a father and son: Tom Wild and Bill Wild. The company has been called Wilds Wood Carvings since its inception. The company name is now perhaps more accurately written "Wilds' Wood Carvings" but given that the father founded the company on his own, originally it perhaps should have been "Wild's Wood Carvings". Whatever - I've got to assume that the company name is a given.

Now imagine you're producing a piece of marketing literature in which you want to promote their current special offers. You wish to head the literature with a succinct title. Given the ambiguity in the company name, which (if any) of the following titles would be correct?

- Wilds' May offers
- Wilds's May offers
- Wilds May offers

My gut instinct is for the first one, but I'd appreciate corrections or confirmations.

NB. A similar question could apply to Halfords. Given that the first Halfords shop was called "Halford Cycle Co. Ltd" perhaps it was pluralised at some point without the apostrophe. What would their special offers be called?

[Cupid Stunt]

As far as the company name goes if it was just Tom Wild & it was the Wood Carving firm belonging to him it should be "Wild's Wood Carving" but seems as it's the firm of both Tom & Bill, it's more than 1 Wild & the firm belongs to both of them & so is correctly "Wilds' Wood Carving"

Regardless of the above, if that's what the company name was, even if it was grammatically incorrect I'd produce any literature using the company name as it is.

[V8mate]

Wilds' May Offers.

Nothing to wwith singular and plural in this case, simply the more correct way of writing Wilds's.

[bonsai]

Surely that name is just perfect for a bit of creative word play.

E.g: "You'll go Wild for our offers!" Or something better, but you get the idea.

Edited by bonsai on Monday 17th May 11:30

[K50 DEL]

V8mate said:

Wilds' May Offers.

Nothing to wwith singular and plural in this case, simply the more correct way of writing Wilds's.

Agreed, should be Wilds' for the reason V8 gave.

[SGirl]

Mm, messy!

As a rule, when I'm translating company literature I try to avoid apostrophes at all wherever possible - they may be correct, grammatically speaking, but they don't "look nice".

Someone mentioned Halfords above - ideal example. Strictly speaking, it should be "Halford's", but it looks better without!

Therefore, if the apostrophe weren't included in the name of the company, personally I'd dispense with it entirely; but since it's there, I think it should be replicated exactly in whatever literature you produce.

Funny coincidence. I'm working on a text for a flooring manufacturer today which has exactly this issue - except in Swedish, possessives aren't indicated by apostrophes (they just add the -s suffix), so it's all a lot easier.

ETA: How about May offers from Wilds (with or without apostrophe)? Looks better than Wilds' May offers. IMVHO.

Edited by SGirl on Monday 17th May 11:48

[AcidReflux]

Thank you all for the replies. "Wilds' May offers" FTW.

bonsai said:

Surely that name is just perfect for a bit of creative word play.

E.g: "You'll go Wild for our offers!" Or something better, but you get the idea.

The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

[whitevanman88]

SGirl said:

Mm, messy!

As a rule, when I'm translating company literature I try to avoid apostrophes at all wherever possible - they may be correct, grammatically speaking, but they don't "look nice".

Someone mentioned Halfords above - ideal example. Strictly speaking, it should be "Halford's", but it looks better without!

Therefore, if the apostrophe weren't included in the name of the company, personally I'd dispense with it entirely; but since it's there, I think it should be replicated exactly in whatever literature you produce.

Funny coincidence. I'm working on a text for a flooring manufacturer today which has exactly this issue - except in Swedish, possessives aren't indicated by apostrophes (they just add the -s suffix), so it's all a lot easier.

ETA: How about May offers from Wilds (with or without apostrophe)? Looks better than Wilds' May offers. IMVHO.

Edited by SGirl on Monday 17th May 11:48

That would depend whether it was 'Mr Halford' or 'Mr Halfords' that started Halfords, non?

[SGirl]

whitevanman88 said:

That would depend whether it was 'Mr Halford' or 'Mr Halfords' that started Halfords, non?

Non. You can call your company whatever you like.

It was Halford Cycle Co. So it was obviously shortened over time to Halfords in the time-honoured British fashion (e.g. Woolworths, Tescos, WHSmiths). You can call your company anything you like, but you need it to be memorable and make it easier for people to write it; that's why I personally would have called the company Wilds Wooden Whatevers rather than Wilds' Wooden Whatevers.

It's all moot anyway. Most people in the UK don't know how to use apostrophes these days, so they'd never know if it's right or wrong.

Edited by SGirl on Monday 17th May 12:28

[AcidReflux]

SGirl said:

It's all moot anyway. Most people in the UK don't know how to use apostrophes these days, so they'd never know if it's right or wrong.

True, but for people like me to whom this matters, it really matters.

[911motorsport]

The company name Wilds is a singular name for the collective of the two owners. It no longer possesses plurality, and as such it should be expressed as "Wild's May offers".

[V8mate]

911motorsport said:

The company name Wilds is a singular name for the collective of the two owners. It no longer possesses plurality, and as such it should be expressed as "Wild's May offers".

Please stop.

You actually contradicted your own logic there.

[whitevanman88]

911motorsport said:

The company name Wilds is a singular name for the collective of the two owners. It no longer possesses plurality, and as such it should be expressed as "Wild's May offers".

That's what I was trying to say.