Grammar Question (Possessive of a Possessive)

RJM62

RJM62

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,157
Location
Upstate New York
Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Specifically, if the name of the entity doing the possessing is in itself a possessive, what would be the proper form to refer to things possessed by the possessor?

Or more specifically, what would be the proper form to refer to the prices of stuff sold by BJ's? BJ's is already a possessive that means the company owned by BJ. So how would one refer to the prices of stuff sold by BJ's? "BJ's prices," BJ's's prices," "BJ's' prices," or something else?

Rich
 
Often see that sort of thing without the possessive at all, eg "Target prices are low" so all the more reason to go with "BJ's prices".
 
If something already ends in an s then I think you just add the apostrophe, generally, so it would be BJ's'. I think.
 
Rushie said:
If something already ends in an s then I think you just add the apostrophe, generally, so it would be BJ's'. I think.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm going with for now; although I suppose a case also could be made for everything BJ's sells being sold on behalf of BJ, in which "BJ's prices" might also be acceptable.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
That's what I'm going with for now; although I suppose a case also could be made for everything BJ's sells being sold on behalf of BJ, in which "BJ's prices" might also be acceptable.

Rich
Click to expand...


I think BJ's' looks cumbersome and I would not go that route.
 
I presume the name of the company is possessive. So adding the apostrophe only would be the most correct thing to do. BUT, only the editor will know it is correct. It will likely look odd to readers, who are less pedantic.

Now, are we talking abut BJ's' price. Or BJ's prices?
 
Last edited:
Ravioli said:
I presume the name of the company is possessive. So adding the apostrophe only would be the most correct thing to do. BUT, only the editor will know it is correct. It will likely look odd to readers, who are less pedantic.

Now, are we talking abut BJ's' price. Or BJ's prices?
Click to expand...

I'm also the editor...

Rich
 
alfadog said:
I think BJ's' looks cumbersome and I would not go that route.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's probably technically correct but would just call attention to something that otherwise nobody will even care about.
 
Rushie said:
It's probably technically correct but would just call attention to something that otherwise nobody will even care about.
Click to expand...

Are you new to this board? That is the premise for POA's existence.
 
On a serious note. It would still be BJ's. BJ's Grocery Store sales BJ's groceries at BJ's prices to BJ's customers.
 
SkyDog58 said:
On a serious note. It would still be BJ's. BJ's Grocery Store sales BJ's groceries at BJ's prices to BJ's customers.
Click to expand...
I think BJ's Grocery Store SELLS BJ's groceries at BJ's prices to BJ's customers. That's all fine. But BJ's' price for for Michelob might might be too high for some reason, BJ's tends to price other beers reasonably, IMHO.
 
Ravioli said:
I think BJ's Grocery Store SELLS BJ's groceries at BJ's prices to BJ's customers. That's all fine. But BJ's' price for for Michelob might might be too high for some reason, BJ's tends to price other beers reasonably, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yep sells, not sales. Damn it, I always correct other people on that one. Too many cold kavs today.
 
I think you're over thinking this... BJ's (the store) is owned by BJ. The prices in that store are BJ's prices.
 
Just be glad you don’t have to be comparing multiple BJ’s’s’ prices against each other!
 
FlySince9 said:
I think you're over thinking this... BJ's (the store) is owned by BJ. The prices in that store are BJ's prices.
Click to expand...

That's what I ultimately decided to do.

I certainly spent more time researching and making a decision than anyone is likely to spend reading the article.

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top