Which one is more grammatically correct as a shop name, Valhalla’s Dojo or Valhalla Dojo? It’s a name for a game centre. My partners and I can’t seem to agree on this.

  • 1
    The OP asks which option is "more grammatical". They are both grammatical. Why should this be closed as "primarily opinion based"? When in doubt, please don't vote to close for whatever reason help you feel more comfortable! There is no reason that I can see not to let the community answer the OP's apparently sincere question. Please reopen. May 4 '19 at 11:28

Both are grammatically correct. They just mean different things.

Valhalla's Dojo

In this case, Valhalla is taking a genitive role. This is the dojo that belongs to, is part of, or emanates from Valhalla. It's commonly referred to as a possessive, indicating that Valhalla possesses the dojo, though it's a bit more complex and has a wider range of meaning than that would suggest.

Valhalla Dojo

In this case, Valhalla is possibly taking an attributive role. It is an "attributive noun", used to indicate something about the attributes of the other noun to which it is attached. It is showing some association between the dojo and the idea of Valhalla.

However, it could also be said to be taking a purely nominative role, the name of the place being Valhalla and it being a dojo.

Of course, if the thing being so named isn't actually a dojo, the implications may be quite different.


Either is fine in it's own way. Both are commonly used in business names.

Valhalla's Dojo

Means 'the dojo of Valhalla', or 'the dojo belonging to Valhalla'. That makes grammatical sense, however unlikely one might feel a dojo in Valhalla would be. Businesses do often use this device to associate a business with something else.

Valhalla Dojo

Means 'the dojo called Valhalla'. The dojo doesnt necessarily have anything to do with Valhalla, it just happens to be named after it. Think of it like 'Pepsi Cola' ... a cola called Pepsi. Pepsi doesn't inherently mean anything other than a way to distinguish itself from other colas. Nevertheless, by using the name Valhalla you would be creating an association in the client's mind.

So different cuisines will often have restaurants called things like 'Bombay Gate' or 'Peking Castle', but it would also be fine to say 'Bombay's Gate' (or 'Gate of Bombay') or 'Peking's Castle'.

  • Generally agree with this answer, but I disagree that "Valhalla Dojo" means "the dojo called Valhalla". "Bombay Gate" does not mean "the gate called Bombay". Apr 15 '19 at 10:26
  • The OP asks which is more "grammatically correct" . You answer by stating that both are fine. Do you mean that both are grammatical? How do you define grammatical (although that might be a better question for the OP)? May 4 '19 at 11:38
  • I define grammatical as whether it abides by the standard rules of grammar and makes sense to the reader, and both do. If you called it "Valhallas Dojo" or "Valhallas' Dojo", that would not be the case.
    – fred2
    May 5 '19 at 17:49

fred2's answer is correct, but it is worth going a little further. A construction like "Valhalla's Dojo" of course uses the apostrophe as a possessive marker. If Valhalla were a person it would be universal to use the apostrophe, and an error to omit it. It is less common to use the apostrophe attached to a geographic location or building, because the connection between the words is an association (the dojo that is at/in Valhalla) rather than possession (the dojo belonging to Valhalla), so "Valhalla Dojo" would be a more usual construction.

An exception is when the location is used as a proxy for people who have a strong connection there - typically in the context of national or local pride. So "America's National Parks" or "Italy's coastline" would be common usages which carry some flavor of a sense of "ownership" by their peoples.

Another common use of the apostrophe is explanatory. For example, it would be usual to refer to "the Tokyo tower", but if you were trying to specify one out of several items, you might refer to "the Tower of London's east gate".

Using Valhalla's Dojo is not wrong - but omitting the "'s" is almost certainly better.

  • doesn't the apostrophe in "the Tower of London's east gate". mean the east gate belongs to London and not York?
    – WendyG
    Apr 15 '19 at 10:16
  • 1
    There is a slight ambiguity here. Indeed the same words "the Tower of London's east gate" could possibly mean either "the east gate of the Tower of London" or "the tower on London's east gate". But "Tower of London" is so familiar to visitors as well as Londoners as a compound noun, that there is hardly any risk of misunderstanding. There are many, many cases where there is a possible ambiguity in meaning which has to be resolved by context, and mostly they do not depend on that " 's ".
    – Ian
    Apr 17 '19 at 9:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .