It's a question for the nitpickers out there.

I'm usually spot on with spelling and grammar, but this one has got me stumped.

The name of the restaurant is Charley Brown's.

So if I were to order some menus for the restaurant, where would the apostrophe go?

1) Charley Brown's Menus

2) Charley Browns' Menus

If you have the answer, please back it up with a link to the explanation rather than saying, "Well, I know because I'm an English teacher."

(I won 1000 Thb last night on a spelling bet, and I'm hoping to double it on the apostrophe question.)

i think its number one, but dont hold your breath, i am SWISS !!!!!!!! :-)

Yeah... Well you missed the apostrophes on "it's" and "don't"... So... Swiss FAIL!

Ohh i don't know my English is not well.

Do you have number 3 ?

3) Menus of Charley Brown's

noo mai roo...number 2 maybe? Because there is already the apostrophe 's' there..

?? chai mai?

I am just a dumb uneducated bum, but my thinking is,

Charley Brown's Menus

The reasoning behind this is. Charly Brown owns the menu/s

The n's denotes ownership of the menus.

I gather there is not more than 1 Charly Brown so there for putting the ' after the s in Brown would be incorrect.

It has been 46 yrs since I was at school, have they changed the rules yet ?

Actually, I think I figured it out now... I think it's number 1.

I looked up McDonald's and Wendy's restaurants.

I also think no.1 is correct, by the same logic as GAV

Told ya so, and I left school at 15. At least I remembered something.lol

i think the logic behind it is that when you call the restaurant Charley Brown's, you're tacitly calling it "Charley Brown's Restaurant." thus Charley Brown's Menu, etc.

incidentally i don't know why all this fuss about punctuation anyway, it's borked beyond repair. i mean think about it: one dot means "full stop" but THREE dots means "continued". shouldn't it be an even fuller stop??? wtf????

shame on me :-(

Ahhh but if you have a name like James who owns a book, we write it "James' book". The apostrophe goes after the 's'.

In this case the restaurant name ends in 's', but it's already a possessive - Charley Brown's RESTAURANT.

So the menus belong to something that already ends in apostrophe 's'.... That's why it's not so straightforward.

However, I'm pretty happy with the McDonald's precedent.... If they're spelling it like that all over the world, I'm happy to copy them.

God help you if you rely on McDonald's to further your English education. What chance have the kids got when asked where they learnt their English and who taught them.

Do they say their teacher got his English teaching skills at McDonalds ........................ do you want fries with that EB lol

In my opinion, it should be neither #1 nor #2 because #2 does not make sense. The place should be called "Charley Browns" without apostrophe if it means "Charley Browns restaurant".

On the other hand, "Charley Brown's" can be seen as a proper name. It cannot mean "Charley Browns (restaurant)" as a genitiv-s is not preceded by an apostrophe except for the case to follow. So, following the grammatical rules would lead to "Charley Brown's' Menus", as the second apostrophe in this case is replacing a genitiv-s that is not written in case of an ending-s. (As I see it, apostrophe rules in German and English are quite similar which means that an apostrophe always is indicating some "missing" letters). Anyhow, I doubt that this construction is a nice one if I just look at the optics of it.

Charley Brown's -> Charley Brown is...

Charley Browns -> something that belongs to Charley Brown

Charley Browns' -> something that belongs to Charley Browns

Charley Brown's restaurant -> wrong grammar/spelling (but apostrophomaina also starts to take over in German nowadays) or proper name.

Just my two cents, as I am neither a native English speaker nor a language teacher or linguist

No - Charley Brown's Restaurant is correct. In English we use apostrophe 's' for both possessives and omitted letters - we understand which from the context of the sentence.

For a singular noun a possessive is written apostrophe 's'. eg David's problem

For a plural noun a possessive is written 's' apostrophe eg The Democrats' policy

However, the name is usually shortened to Charley Brown's.

Someone suggested that Charley Brown's MUST be followed by a noun (the possession). But that isn't necessarily so if the noun can be assumed. eg My wine was cheaper than my Dad's.

Still sticking with Option 1...

it is a genitivum so it is Charley Brown's Menus

"charlie browns' menus" refers to menus of multiple charlie browns restaurants, while "charlie brown's menu"s refers to the menus of one or the charlie brown's restaurant.

Dave you surprise me. Of course it's the first one. Unless you are talking about many Charlie Browns.

@kaunitz - Actually the way in which the genitive "s" is used in English is different from German. Specifically,

"Charley Brown's" -> "Charley Brown is" OR "something that belongs to Charley Brown". (The exact meaning must be deduced from context).

However, I do like your idea of using "Charley Brown's' Menus". It's not correct, but it is somewhat logical!

The correct usage is "1) Charley Brown's Menus". It's not nice because it's ambiguous, but you can read more here:

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophes.htm

(scroll down to "Best avoided").

@EB: According to your last explanation, it very clearly would be option 1

What PeeMarc said.... It's Charlie Brown not Browns

Names aside this wiki piece gives good examples of 's that are not names of people:

Importance for disambiguation

Each of these four phrases (listed in Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct) has a distinct meaning:

My sister's friend's investments (the investments belonging to a friend of my sister)

My sister's friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of my sister)

My sisters' friend's investments (the investments belonging to a friend of several of my sisters)

My sisters' friends' investments (the investments belonging to several friends of several of my sisters)

Kingsley Amis, on being challenged to produce a sentence whose meaning depended on a possessive apostrophe, came up with:

Those things over there are my husband's. (Those things over there belong to my husband.)

Those things over there are my husbands'. (Those things over there belong to several husbands of mine.)

Those things over there are my husbands. (I'm married to those men over there.)

Of course i'm not one to preach as i never give a rats arse about my pronunciation and grammmmmar when posting here.. I make good bank and have a nice life so **** it.

I'm still sticking with one...

@Pee Marc... the problem lies with the fact the Charley Brown's is the name... So how do I show a possessive on a word that already ends with apostrophe 's'.

And I think the answer is, I can't.

(Unless I go with the Charley Brown's' option - which isn't viable.)

You are all retarded for even discussing this.

Aha!

Thanks to HarryPott for the following... (although it is a style guide and not a strict grammatical rule)

The Economist style guide says "Try to avoid using Lloyd's (the insurance market) as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem". There is no way in English to make a possessive of a word that already contains an apostrophe. The same problem is posed by several other organisations' names, and if the problem can't be avoided, you must grit your teeth and treat them as if they are called Lloyd, Sainsbury, or McDonald:

* McDonald's employment practices

* Sainsbury's recruitment drive

* Lloyd's current difficulties

@Japamerican... we should all be talking about babies, I guess. And how smart OUR baby is compared to other babies.

Pttthhh!