I wrote about a bad experience with a website back in 2005, and I made an off-handed reference to a bit of bad grammar I found in an error message;

Microsoft 4.0+ or Netscape 4.7+ (excluding Netscape 6) is required to use Purolators ‘Online Shipping’

My first complaint is that they don’t even know what the possessive version of their own name is; it’s “Purolator’s”. That’s just dumb.

This was a just an aside as I was complaining about a larger issue with regard to badly implemented websites with artificially narrow requirements.

It’s a post that seems to pull in CSRs from Purolator every so often, according to the logs and the comments that have come in.

Today I had a lovely response from Jon, who attempts to correct my spelling in my complaint about spelling on Purolator’s website. I wonder if Jon is a bored CSR between calls at Purolator or one of their warehouse employees who has taken a break from kicking boxes off the back of trucks. For the record, I think the idea about the FedEx coupons is genius.

◦On 11.06.09 Jon wrote these pithy words:e
I think purolator should just give out coupons for Fedex.

BTW, the apostrophe stands for a missing letter or letters, and is not required for the possesive.

‘Purolator is’ shortens to purolator’s, as in “purolator’s a diseased, pus-filled blister on the udder of a dead goat”.

Purolators or purolators’ are both accepted possesive spellings, as in “purolators attempts at customer service are best described as masturbatory” or ‘purolators’ name should probably be shortened to just plain later.

Even if you don’t know how to spell perfectly either, I agree with you that purolator really is a very poor company.

I started to reply inline with that comment, but thought it deserved a post all to itself.

Jon;

How glad I am to hear from you, to correct items in my post from years ago. I’m especially glad that you come here to correct grammar, however you offer advice that is completely incorrect, and poorly written at the same time.

If you want to be pedantic, you should at least be partly correct, and should make at least some passing effort to write sensible sentences. What does “name should probably be shortened to just plain later” even mean?

Anyway, to the central point of your comment; the apostrophe’s use in indicating possession. The apostrophe does more than simply indicate missing letters. I think that you’re confusing the rules around its and it’s and attempting to extend that to other uses of this punctuation mark.

Let’s see what the AP style guide has for the use of the apostrophe in this case (para-phrased)

• For a singular proper name not ending in s, add ‘s


• For a singular proper name ending in s, use only an apostrophe: Descartes’ theories, Kansas’ schools.


• For a singular proper name ending in an s sound such as x, ce, and z, use ‘s: Marx’s theories, the prince’s life.

I get the impression that English isn’t your first language, but just in case you’re English, let’s check Oxford too;

• To form a possessive from a singular noun, add an apostrophe followed by s: ‘the girl’s book’.


• Add an apostrophe to plurals ending in s, e. g. “the girls’ books”. If a plural noun does not end in s, add an apostrophe followed by s: “the children’s toys”.

Let’s take a look at some examples of how to indicate possession with an apostrophe based on the style guides (AP and Oxford agree on these uses);

It’s shirt was green — wrong

Its shirt was green — right



Steves shirt was green — wrong

Steve’s shirt was green — right



Chris’s shirt was green — wrong

Chris’ shirt was green — right

It gets a bit weird with singular and plural nouns that end in s, especially when you consider that both of the correct versions below are pronounced identically. The only way you can tell how if it’s singular or plural when spoken is based on the verb tense.

With one hostess;



The hostess’ shirt was green — wrong

The hostess’s shirt was green — right



With a bevy of hostesses, all wearing the same thing;



The hostesses’s shirts were green — wrong

The hostesses’ shirts were green — right

There is no circumstance I can imagine where Purolators’ would be used to indicate the possessive form of the singular noun Purolator.

Neither Purolators’ nor Purolators are considered acceptable possessive forms of the name Purolator; show me one style guide that accepts that.

You may wish to consider Skitt’s Law when you are tempted to correct people online in future.