I copied the picture and enlarged it.

Either the D is bleeding into the S, or
there is an apostrophe there. I think the
latter, given that there is no other bleeding.


-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Further it's

Well then, either the McDonalds (two) did not pay attention to grammar or
the separate lines identify the name and then, separately, the available
(ostensible) food.

Date sent:              Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:09:05 -0500
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
From:                   "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: OT: Further it's
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Nancy Gish wrote:

> I do not know the history of how "McDonalds" became a brand name, and
> brand names pay no attention as a rule to rules.  But it could well be
> simply a plural rather than a possessive.  If it simply is the name of a
> family, i.e., the McDonalds, then the possessive would be "Mcdonalds' "
> and would not be in the brand name.

The first McDonalds was owned by two brothers named (what else)
A short history of the early chain, bought out by Ray Kroc, is at

At the webpage is a picture of the first restaurant and it displays a sign
saying (with no apostrophes):


    Rick Parker