Tuesday, 16 October 2007

Brothers pear cider

img src="" border="0" title="We've moved to" alt="We've moved to" />

Brothers pear cider, originally uploaded by Gez D.

I've been close to blogging about this in the past. The first time I came across the Brothers brand of pear cider was about 5 months ago, on an all too infrequent outing with fellow GrammarBlog contributors in Newcastle.

It was on the grassy knoll outside the Cluny where I gave an extended eulogy on the punctuation, (or lack-there-of ) on my bottles of perry, fuelled by the bottles' contents and my righteous indignation.

"Surely it should be Brothers' or maybe even Brother's?", I vaguely remember shouting to anyone foolish enough to listen (I was oblivious the the fact that they couldn't hear the distinction in apostrophe placement) but in the cold light of sobriety I began to doubt myself.

Is it in the realm of possibility that a company could be called Brothers and yet not need an apostrophe anywhere on the label of their "Strawberry mixed-pear cider"? I'll put this question to you, dear readers: should Brothers become the latest addition to The List?

P.S. I make no apologies for following Dan's historical and erudite post with my plebeian tale of drunken buffoonery; that's just the way events unfold sometimes.

Labels: , ,

Blogger Dan said...

I can't believe you usurped my cultural blog with this.

16 October 2007 at 14:45  
Blogger Tom said...

When it comes to brands, I'm a bit more lenient. Perhaps 'brothers' pertains to the bond a group of 'blokes' share when they're 'pissed'.

16 October 2007 at 19:56  
Blogger Gez said...

Tom, I hope you aren't selling that, because I'm not buying it. Why should we be more lenient when it comes to brands? If it's wrong, it's wrong. I'm grumpy tonight, maybe I'll feel different after a good sleep. Then again, maybe I won't.

16 October 2007 at 22:53  
Blogger Tom said...

A brand name can often deviate from its origin due to usage and familiarity. If for example, McDonald's dropped their apostrophe, I'd suggest that it would be acceptable because the brand name no longer pertains to a chain of restaurants belonging to Mr. McDonald. It is just the signifier that people associate with a chain of restaurants.

17 October 2007 at 14:14  
Blogger Paddy said...

I've been confused by a few similar examples of naming things after plurals and attributing no possession recently. I saw an advert in a magazine for Daniels Healthcare, seemingly named after a group of Daniels. It doesn't seem to belong to all of the Daniels collectively, nor any one of them, it's just named after them. Weird.

18 October 2007 at 12:44  
Blogger Gez said...

Are we agreed that there is enough reasonable doubt for Brothers to avoid The List?

22 October 2007 at 09:30  
Blogger JD said...

Hmm, the supermarket chain Morrisons springs to mind - no apostrophe there. Or indeed, Boots. It would be strange now to see a Boot's on the high street.

As for Daniels Healthcare, it could be named after someone with the surname Daniels. In much the same way as I, being called JD, might start a company called JD Editorial Services. The same could apply to Brothers. Without knowing the origin of the company, it's difficult to say.

So yes, I would agree there is enough reasonable doubt to keep Brothers off the list. Sadly.

22 October 2007 at 13:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brothers is named without any punctuation as it is run by (and named after) 4 brothers.

30 October 2007 at 19:46  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

GrammarBlog Shorts

It's not just you

photos in Grammar Bloopers More photos in Grammar Bloopers

Powered by FeedBurner

Observational Humor Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Add to Technorati Favorites

Join My Community at MyBloglog!

British Blog Directory.

blogarama - the blog directory

Blog Directory - Blogged