Another side-issue on possessive family names

[desperance]

I learned a thing today, while copy-editing. Boots the Chemist, of legendary English status? Was indeed founded by Mr Boot, and was Boot the Chemist until his son joined the family firm: at which point it became - and remains - Boots plural, not Boot's possessive. I rather like that. Many a Boot.

Also, I believe I neglected to point out that the proper genitive form from Chaz is Chaz'z. Not Chaz's, and certainly not Chaz'. All things that are, are Chaz'z*.


*Mac would like to assert here that all things that are, are Mac's.**

**Apple would like to assert here that all things that are, are Macs.

Comments

[arkessian]

So, if I have cause to go to one of their emporia***, I go to Boots's [establishment is understood]? Clearly I can't go to Boots, as father and son have long since shuffled off this mortal coil, and even if they haven't, they have inexplicably omitted to provide directions to their current location.

*Chino wishes to take issue with Mac: Only the things that are out of Chino's reach (not sight, as he has recently gone blind) are not Chino's and may be Mac's if there is no more proximate feline claimant.

**I have no dog in this fight, never having (knowingly) provided funds to a fruit.

***My Latin O-level equipped me to construct this plural, although it did not occur (as far as I remember) in Trimalchio's Dinner Party, which was the unexpected highlight of my sixteenth year.