"Simpson" or "Simpsons"

Rudy Vey said:

The name is "Simpson". That is what the sticker on my brushes says and that is how the name them-self:
Simpson Shaving Brushes
I think the " ' " was left off on the boxes just to make the appearance of the name on the box look evenly....Maybe some 30 years ago someone decided to drop the ' because this looks better on the box...

Click to expand...

Plausible explanation. Dubious decision. I wonder if they had instead put "Simpson" on the box, if instead of "Manufacturers", it would have said "Manufacturer". My British friends often use plural pronouns where the referent is "company", so "Simpson / Manufacturers of...." might be correct British usage.

We are getting into the same ruckus that erupted in the UK when the Waterstones chain dropped the apostrophe from its name. Apostrophe abuse is one of my pet peeves, but dropping the apostrophe from certain ostensibly (but not necessarily) possessive proper names is a long-established usage and doesn't feel like an error to me. In many cases (including Waterstones), it's a design decision -- the name looks visually cleaner on a sign -- that I sympathize with. In the final analysis 'tis a free country, and an establishment (or person) can spell its name any way it wishes.

I'll leave it to the Simpson|Simpsons|Simpson's|Simpsons'|Simpsons's experts to sort out the proper usage in the case under discussion.

Viseguy said:

We are getting into the same ruckus that erupted in the UK when the Waterstones chain dropped the apostrophe from its name. Apostrophe abuse is one of my pet peeves, but dropping the apostrophe from certain ostensibly (but not necessarily) possessive proper names is a long-established usage and doesn't feel like an error to me. In many cases (including Waterstones), it's a design decision -- the name looks visually cleaner on a sign -- that I sympathize with. In the final analysis 'tis a free country, and an establishment (or person) can spell its name any way it wishes.

I'll leave it to the Simpson|Simpsons|Simpson's|Simpsons'|Simpsons's experts to sort out the proper usage in the case under discussion.

Click to expand...

+1!

Ken, thanks for bringing this up as i have always been curious as well with regards to how i use it grammatically.

Amzimbo said:

Well, to be really pedantic about it...if the name IS "Simpsons," then the correct possessive is "Simpsons's." That's not just my (Chris's) opinion. Check out the NYT guide on usage.

Click to expand...

So, if the name IS "Simpsons", one would properly write: "Simpsons's brushes's qualities are legendary"?

And then, I suppose, if referring to the work product of a several Simpsons family members, it would be "the Simpsonses's brushes's qualities are legendary." That's really fun to pronounce.

As to The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, I'm not sure it owns the last word on punctuation of possessives. The rule is actually split. For example, see this respected authority. The Associated Press Stylebook also comes out on the other side. A middle approach as laid by the University of Sussex, however, makes best sense to me (i.e., don't add an "s" that wouldn't properly be pronounced).

Amzimbo said:

BTW, the rule against split infinitives was a late (18th c.) pedantic effort to impose Latin grammar on to English. The infinitive in Latin is one word (like in modern Spanish or Portuguese, for example), so it can't be split by definition. Split infinitives never troubled Chaucer or Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

Of course "infinitive" in Latin can be split: Infīn ... ītīvus. See!? But, I know, that's beside your main point.

I don't find the argument that "split infinitives never troubled Chaucer or Shakespeare" to be strongly persuasive. First, many practices that were acceptable to Middle Age and Elizabethan sensibilities are no longer regarded as civilized (for example public drawing-and-quartering and burning at the stake). Second, Modern English didn't even exist when Chaucer wrote. And third, according to this Wikipedia article, there is only one instance of a split infinitive in all of Shakespeare's works, and that was obviously a special case to accommodate a rhyming scheme:

Root pity in thy heart, that when it grows
Thy pity may deserve to pitied be.

There is a higher authority than Shakespeare anyhow. Not a single split infinitive is to be found in the whole King James Version of the Bible. I take that to indicate fairly clearly where God stands on the issue.

But I really don't care very much about split infinitives. I was just joshing.

Chief, you have clearly lost your mind my friend.

The answer to your thread's question is "both".

squatzilla801 said:

Chief, you have clearly lost your mind my friend.

Click to expand...

Can you suggest something better to do?

I already shaved today.

squatzilla801 said:

The answer to your thread's question is "both".

Click to expand...

That 's just not right.

Another reason not to buy a Chubby 2 in Manchurian.

ChiefBroom said:

So, if the name IS "Simpsons", one would properly write: "Simpsons's brushes's qualities are legendary"?

And then, I suppose, if referring to the work product of a several Simpsons family members, it would be "the Simpsonses's brushes's qualities are legendary." That's really fun to pronounce.

As to The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, I'm not sure it owns the last word on punctuation of possessives. The rule is actually split. For example, see this respected authority. The Associated Press Stylebook also comes out on the other side. A middle approach as laid by the University of Sussex, however, makes best sense to me (i.e., don't add an "s" that wouldn't properly be pronounced).



Of course "infinitive" in Latin can be split: Infīn ... ītīvus. See!? But, I know, that's beside your main point.

I don't find the argument that "split infinitives never troubled Chaucer or Shakespeare" to be strongly persuasive. First, many practices that were acceptable to Middle Age and Elizabethan sensibilities are no longer regarded as civilized (for example public drawing-and-quartering and burning at the stake). Second, Modern English didn't even exist when Chaucer wrote. And third, according to this Wikipedia article, there is only one instance of a split infinitive in all of Shakespeare's works, and that was obviously a special case to accommodate a rhyming scheme:

Root pity in thy heart, that when it grows
Thy pity may deserve to pitied be.

There is a higher authority than Shakespeare anyhow. Not a single split infinitive is to be found in the whole King James Version of the Bible. I take that to indicate fairly clearly where God stands on the issue.

But I really don't care very much about split infinitives. I was just joshing.

Click to expand...

Yep, you lost me. Suddenly if feel my duke 2 needs a thorough washing.

ChiefBroom said:

It's a thankless job, but someone has to hold the line against split infinitives.

Click to expand...

My wife, a teacher of English, would appreciate your work. Keep it up.

On this page, the founder's name is Simpson (Alexander Simpson).
On this page, it states "Simpson Shaving Brushes"

Assuming this information is correct, the original company name (before takeover by vulfix) is "A. Simpson Brushes Limited"

Obviously the correct term should be "Simpson".

As to why they use "Simpsons - Manufacturers of the Finest Shaving Brushes" - my take is that it is an error (there is only one manufacturer of simpson brushes, right?) plus an "apostrophe abuse"

merkur59 said:

"apostrophe abuse"

Click to expand...

I like that phrase!

Nice to learn something new.

ChiefBroom said:

I like that phrase!

Click to expand...

Thanks. It just popped out, probably because I spend so much time stewing about the rampant misuse of this mark. To add insult to injury, some people want to abolish it.

Both options are used and widely accepted nowadays.

For UK trade mark purposes, it seems they registered "SIMPSON". See http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2490961

Viseguy said:

Thanks. It just popped out, probably because I spend so much time stewing about the rampant misuse of this mark. To add insult to injury, some people want to abolish it.

Click to expand...

Amusing! I must confess to being an offender. I often catch myself inserting apostrophes in possessive pronouns. It isn't that I don't know better; it's just habit, or muscle memory (hopefully not dementia).

I couldn't tell how serious the argument was. In any case, I think dropping the apostrophe generally is not a great idea.

What I've concluded from this thread is to refer to the company as "Simpson", which are/is the makers of Simpson's brushes.

If, however, the name were "Simpsons", it would rather be "the makers of Simpsons' brushes" (not "Simpsons's"), the NYT Manual of Style and Usage be damned. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the NYT MoS&U turned out be be a causal factor in the ill-conceived anti-apostrophe movement.

Now I hope thinking about this doesn't ruin my Christmas.

In the spirit of not ruining your Christmas, I shall refrain from deploying the big guns of Fowler, or Fowlers, or Fowler's, Fowlers's and Fowlers'es. A level of pedantry up with which no one should have to put at Christmas. ;--))

FWIW From their website:

"Alexander Simpson started making shaving brushes in the East End of London in 1919. He soon built up the business and in 1924, moved to Clapham where he established an award-winning reputation for his shaving brushes. In 1941, following the loss of his factory in the blitz, Mr Simpson moved his business to the West Country."

They also identify their company as "Simpsons Manufacturers of the FINEST shaving brushes" Perhaps "Simpsons" refers to the multimember family and is pleural also suggested by the word "Manufacturers"

The label on their brushes says
"SIMPSON
Made in England
STERILIZED"

HTH?

You have to keep in mind, they are in the UK after-all. They never really quite mastered the English language there. I can never watch any British television or movies without the sub-titles. Even the closed captioning program can't keep up and frequently says something like "unintelligible audio," so I guess that settles it then, English is just foreign to them.






















To all the members in the UK, just kidding.

Great thread, gentlemen!
What if they just aren't consistent?

Amzimbo said:

In the spirit of not ruining your Christmas, I shall refrain from deploying the big guns of Fowler, or Fowlers, or Fowler's, Fowlers's and Fowlers'es. A level of pedantry up with which no one should have to put at Christmas. ;--))

Click to expand...

Mine (see below) have been loaded and at the ready, but I appreciate your gesture, kind Sir, and shall reciprocate in the same Spirit of Christmas.

BTW, it was actually Churchill's quip regarding end-of-sentence prepositions that came to mind in response to Mark's "pendant" post, prompting mine about holding the line against split infinitives. For what it's worth, I've always been a somewhat torn over the latter. I think Fowler's discussion of them (in the 2nd edition) perfectly nails the subject. Interestingly, he doesn't mention the Latin infinitive connection. I had also heard that, many years ago, but have come to believe it's most likely old urban legend (or pro-split propaganda). Strict advocacy of The Rule Against Split Infinitives is, I agree, pedantry. But I suspect the rule initially emerged in response to broadening of a usage that hadn't previously appeared with much frequency and so didn't invite a rule. Fowler (or Gowers) concludes with the example: "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and divinely -- from the Divine point of view -- impeach the European system of Church and States." It wouldn't take many encounters with similar phrases to conclude "there ought to be some kind of rule against that." The problem isn't with the split infinitive as such, however; it's simply an atrocious sentence. I tried to construct a similar example with a reference to Simpson brushes -- so as to stay on topic -- but couldn't come up with one quite so bad.

Have safe and happy holidays and a terrific New Year.

And thanks for the fodder.