|
Post by finnsheart on Feb 26, 2015 12:03:41 GMT
Hello, if our family name is Bell and our company is called Bells Architecture, should it be written as Bell's Architecture? It looks horrible to me for some reason.
Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Feb 26, 2015 15:16:33 GMT
Hello Finnsheart.
Yes, Bell's Architecture is fine. Or you could go for Bell Architecture, equally fine.
|
|
|
Post by finnsheart on Feb 26, 2015 17:21:16 GMT
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Feb 26, 2015 23:25:18 GMT
Paul, wouldn't Bells' Architecture be more appropriate? The question referred to OUR family name, and OUR business, so presumably there's more than one Bell: The Bells. In which case Bells' Architecture makes more sense than Bell's Architecture.
I'd go with your other suggestion of Bell Architecture.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Feb 27, 2015 18:32:23 GMT
Trevor, I agree up to a point. There's no need for a sign or company name to reflect legal ownership, so either Bell's or Bells' would do. And then, of course, many companies drop (or never use) their apostrophe anyway - Lloyds Bank (but not Lloyd's Register), Boots, Barclays.
So pretty much all combinations are defendable:
Bell's Architecture - possessive, of Bell. Bells' Architecture - possessive, of Bells. Bell Architecture - adjectival, architecture of type Bell. Bells Architecture - adjectival, architecture of type Bells.
So just pick one you like! I happen to like Bell's Architecture, especially if one of the Bells is more or less in charge. It'll probably cause the least comment. So I was re-assuring Finnsheart that it is fine, even though she thinks it looks horrible. But I agree with you, Bells' Architecture is fine too. I don't know how you'd decide which is more appropriate - so go with any of them, Finnsheart, and don't worry about it too much!
|
|
|
Post by finnsheart on Feb 27, 2015 20:06:11 GMT
Thank you for that! I really appreciate your input. I will put the options forward to the rest of the family.
|
|